netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] Ipvlan should return an error when an address is already in use.

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20170609.131510.1262676940920520377.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Fri, 09 Jun 2017 13:15:10 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     kjlx@...pleofstupid.com
Cc:     maheshb@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] Ipvlan should return an error when an
 address is already in use.

From: Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 10:13:10 -0700

> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 12:26:46PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>
>> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 13:12:14 -0700
>> 
>> > The ipvlan code already knows how to detect when a duplicate address is
>> > about to be assigned to an ipvlan device.  However, that failure is not
>> > propogated outward and leads to a silent failure.
>> > 
>> > Introduce a validation step at ip address creation time and allow device
>> > drivers to register to validate the incoming ip addresses.  The ipvlan
>> > code is the first consumer.  If it detects an address in use, we can
>> > return an error to the user before beginning to commit the new ifa in
>> > the networking code.
>> > 
>> > This can be especially useful if it is necessary to provision many
>> > ipvlans in containers.  The provisioning software (or operator) can use
>> > this to detect situations where an ip address is unexpectedly in use.
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by: Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>
>> 
>> Ok, applied, thank you.
> 
> Thanks, did this look otherwise alright?

Yes, I was mildly unsatisfied with the ipv6 addrconf situation but I know
very well about that, and those kinds of addresses aren't of interest
for what you are trying to achieve right?