netdev - Re: [RFC] net: ipv4: drop unicast encapsulated in L2 multicast

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: <540675F2.1030308@miraclelinux.com>
Date:	Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:59:14 +0900
From:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
CC:	hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] net: ipv4: drop unicast encapsulated in L2 multicast

Johannes Berg wrote:
> As long as IPv6 doesn't mandate it in the RFCs I'm not really sure we
> should just drop it, even if we think it won't cause any problems?
>
> CLUSTERIP seems like a special configuration, but I'm not sure it can be
> detected and automatically allowed?

Please do not "drop" L2 multicast/broadcast for L3 unicast and
vice versa, unless it is explicitly specified by RFC.

Upper-layer needs to cope eith situation of seeing packets with
"incorrect" L2 header anyway (e.g., in promiscous mode).
I do not see much advantage to drop them here.

-- 
Hideaki Yoshifuji <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>
Technical Division, MIRACLE LINUX CORPORATION
--
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