netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv6: Add IN6_ADDR_GEN_MODE_STABLE_PRIVACY

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: <CAKD1Yr0ryFE+7ysrUKPvTfi5KNeibRBZjEzQX1K+oKQa0WNEhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 May 2020 18:45:18 +0900
From:   Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>
To:     Bram Bonné <brambonne@...gle.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        Linux NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>,
        Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: Add IN6_ADDR_GEN_MODE_STABLE_PRIVACY_SOFTMAC mode

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 10:17 PM Bram Bonné <brambonne@...gle.com> wrote:
> The intention here (and below) was to keep the existing default
> behavior of using IN6_ADDR_GEN_MODE_STABLE_PRIVACY if stable_secret is
> set, while allowing to override this behavior by setting add_gen_mode
> to IN6_ADDR_GEN_MODE_STABLE_PRIVACY_SOFTMAC. I tested this locally,
> and it seems to work as expected, but please let me know if you think
> the above approach does not make sense (or if you'd prefer
> IN6_ADDR_GEN_MODE_STABLE_PRIVACY_SOFTMAC to be the default instead).

Yes, sorry, I think I was misreading the code.

> The RFC considers the generated identifiers as: "stable for each
> network interface within each subnet, but [changing] as a host moves
> from one network to another". If the MAC address stays stable for a
> specific subnet, this implementation fits that definition.

Makes sense to me.