netdev - Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: addrconf: fix Juniper SSL VPN client regression

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87shvg9txc.fsf@miraculix.mork.no>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jul 2016 15:38:07 +0200
From:	Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
	Jonas Lippuner <jonas@...puner.ca>,
	吉藤英明 <hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: addrconf: fix Juniper SSL VPN client regression

Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org> writes:
> On 09.07.2016 19:23, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>> Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org> writes:
>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016, at 23:13, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>>>> The Juniper SSL VPN client use a "tun" interface and seems to
>>>> be picky about visible changes.to it. Commit cc9da6cc4f56
>>>> ("ipv6: addrconf: use stable address generator for ARPHRD_NONE")
>>>> made such interfaces get an auto-generated IPv6 link local address
>>>> by default, similar to most other interface types. This made the
>>>> Juniper SSL VPN client fail for unknown reasons.
>>>>
>>>> Fixing this regression by effectively reverting the behaviour to
>>>> what we had before, while keeping the new "addrgenmode random"
>>>> feature.
>>>
>>> I wonder if we can simply add a flag, something like
>>> IFF_SUPPRESS_AUTO_IPV6_LL, to net_device->priv_flags and use that. So we
>>> can keep behavior for qmi, vxlan-gpe and gre. tun is the only device
>>> that is really user space facing, so maybe we just limit it to this?
>> 
>> Sounds good to me, but I don't know if the use case really qualifies as
>> 
>>  "* You should have a pretty good reason to be extending these flags."
>> 
>> 
>> The automatic address is certainly nice to have, but "good reason"?  I
>> don't know...  We can always just configure those devices for automatic
>> LL addresses using "ip link set foo addrgen random" or similar.
>
> I do think it is important enough to include it into priv_flags,
> especially if you compare it to other flags in there. We also can easily
> add new priv_flags member or enlarge to long if we run out in the long term.

OK, I'll cook a new version with that.


> I would slightly prefer if tunnels keep the behavior we introduced one
> release(?) ago.

Depends on how you count.  it was introduced in v4.5.


Bjørn