netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2] IPv6: enable bind() to assign an anycast address

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1392666165.65245.YahooMailNeo@web125505.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:42:45 -0800 (PST)
From:	François-Xavier Le Bail <fx.lebail@...oo.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"kuznet@....inr.ac.ru" <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>
Cc:	"christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be" <christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be>,
	"hannes@...essinduktion.org" <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"eric.dumazet@...il.com" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] IPv6: enable bind() to assign an anycast address

> From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>

> From: Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>
>>  On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Christoph Paasch
>>  <christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be> wrote:
>>>  I don't have strong opinions for or against this patch.
>>> 
>>>  I was only involved in the original thread because F-X claimed that
>>>  draft-iab-anycast-arch-implications (now RFC 7094) allows the use of 
> anycast
>>>  addresses for TCP, which is not what RFC 7094 is saying. There is no
>>>  recommendation concerning TCP in the RFC and the situation is rather 
> unclear.
>> 
>>  The same is here.
>> 
>>  Using anycast as source or bind address, why not?
>> 
>>  Use of anycast with TCP? Logically impossible, ergo prohibited.
>>  If someone wants to play with fire, the option can be left hidden behind
>>  a sysctl disabled by default.
> 
> Agreed.

If I understand well the reviews, no change was ask for this patch.
The sysctl was asked in case of patch for TCP.
So, why the status is now "Changes Requested" ? 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html