netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: allow userspace to add IFA_F

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: <20180226.121127.2237252602192340288.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:11:27 -0500 (EST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     sd@...asysnail.net
Cc:     dsahern@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: allow userspace to add IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC
 addresses

From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:56:19 +0100

> 2018-02-26, 10:57:11 -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> Userland is now repsonsible for implementing correct behavior when it
>> takes over this task, and therefore the kernel has no say in the
>> matter of proper ipv6 neighbor discovery and addrconf behavior.
> 
> As an aside, that's also the case whenever userland uses packet
> sockets.

When you use packet sockets, all bets are off and it is clearly the
case that the user gets to keep the broken pieces when things go
wrong.

That's completely different to this case, which is a bonfide explicit
allowance for userspace to take over these fundamental protocol tasks
from the kernel.

So please do not use packet sockets as an example of a similar
situation.