netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH] ipv6: Use dev_addr in stable-privacy address generation

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: <CABWXKLwamYiLhwUHsb5nZHnyZb4=6RrrdUg3CiX7CZOuVime7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:50:07 +0100
From:   Bram Bonné <brambonne@...gle.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, kuba@...nel.org,
        hannes@...essinduktion.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
        Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ipv6: Use dev_addr in stable-privacy address generation

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 7:45 PM David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> I think the current behavior is intentional in that it's supposed to use
> something that is unchanging even across arbitrary administrator changes
> to the in-use MAC address.

Thank you for your feedback David.

Could you help me understand the use cases where the admin / user
chooses to use MAC address randomization, but still wants an IPv6
link-local address that remains stable across these networks? My
assumption was that the latter would defeat the purpose of the former,
though it's entirely possible that I'm missing something.