netdev - Re: [PATCH] net-ipv6: fix excessive RTF_ADDRCONF flag on ::1/128 local route (and others)

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]

Date:   Tue, 3 Sep 2019 13:58:07 +0900
From:   Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>,
        Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net-ipv6: fix excessive RTF_ADDRCONF flag on ::1/128
 local route (and others)

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 11:18 AM David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
> addrconf_f6i_alloc is used for addresses added by userspace
> (ipv6_add_addr) and anycast. ie., from what I can see it is not used for RAs

Isn't ipv6_add_addr called by addrconf_prefix_rcv_add_addr, which is
called by addrconf_prefix_rcv, which is called by
ndisc_router_discovery? That is what happens when we process an RA;
AFAICS manual configuration is inet6_addr_add, not ipv6_add_addr.

Maciej, with this patch, do SLAAC addresses still have RTF_ADDRCONF?
Per my previous message, my assumption would be no, but I might be
misreading the code.