netdev - Re: vnet problem (bug? feature?)

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: <20150216.115408.999383132375922083.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:54:08 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	tte@...fau.de
Cc:	sowmini05@...il.com, billfink@...dspring.com,
	cwang@...pensource.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: vnet problem (bug? feature?)

From: Toerless Eckert <tte@...fau.de>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:13:10 +0100

> I fail to find a good reference explaining why linux would default to
> rp_filtering = 1 (more appropriate for routers) even if forwarding defaults to 0
> (more appropriate for multi-homed hosts). 
> 
> Any ideas how to track back where this  choice came from ? 

"Linux", ie. the kernel, does not default to '1' for rp_filtering.

The distributions are setting it to a non-zere value via
/etc/sysctl.conf or similar, and I've always said that I consider it
an extremely poor decision, as reverse path filtering is completely
pointless on an end host.
--
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