netdev - Re: why are IPv6 addresses removed on link down

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: <1421152613.13626.24.camel@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:36:53 +0100
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...hat.com>
To:	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>
Cc:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: why are IPv6 addresses removed on link down

Hi,

On Di, 2015-01-13 at 21:15 +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote:
> YOSHIFUJI Hideaki wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> >> On Mo, 2015-01-12 at 23:10 -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 22:06:44 -0700
> >>> David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> We noticed that IPv6 addresses are removed on a link down. e.g.,
> >>>>     ip link set dev eth1
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Looking at the code it appears to be this code path in addrconf.c:
> >>>>
> >>>>           case NETDEV_DOWN:
> >>>>           case NETDEV_UNREGISTER:
> >>>>                   /*
> >>>>                    *      Remove all addresses from this interface.
> >>>>                    */
> >>>>                   addrconf_ifdown(dev, event != NETDEV_DOWN);
> >>>>                   break;
> >>>>
> >>>> IPv4 addresses are NOT removed on a link down. Is there a particular
> >>>> reason IPv6 addresses are?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> David
> >>>
> >>> See RFC's which describes how IPv6 does Duplicate Address Detection.
> >>> Address is not valid when link is down, since DAD is not possible.
> >>
> >> It should be no problem if the kernel would reacquire them on ifup and
> >> do proper DAD. We simply must not use them while the interface is dead
> >> (also making sure they don't get used for loopback routing).
> >>
> >> The problem the IPv6 addresses get removed is much more a historical
> >> artifact nowadays, I think. It is part of user space API and scripts
> >> deal with that already.
> >
> > We might have another "detached" state which essintially drops
> > outgoing packets while link is down.  Just after recovering link,
> > we could start receiving packet from the link and perform optimistic
> > DAD. And then, after it succeeds, we may start sending packets.
> >
> > Since "detached" state is like the state just before completing
> > Optimistic DAD, it is not so difficult to implement this extended
> > behavior, I guess.
> >
> 
> Note that node is allowed to send packets to neighbours or default
> routers if the node knows their link-layer addresses during Optimistic
> DAD.
> 

I don't think it should be a problem from internal state handling of the
addresses.

I am much more concerned with scripts expecting the addresses to be
flushed on interface down/up and not reacting appropriate.

Bye,
Hannes


--
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