netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: addrconf: Add accept_ra_prefix

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]

Date:   Fri, 12 Mar 2021 09:41:45 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     subashab@...eaurora.org
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
        dsahern@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: ipv6: addrconf: Add accept_ra_prefix_route.

On 3/11/21 7:22 PM, subashab@...eaurora.org wrote:
> 
> We are seeing that the interface itself doesn't get the address assigned
> via RA when setting accept_ra_pinfo = 0.
> 
> We would like to have the interface address assigned via SLAAC
> here while the route management would be handled via the userspace daemon.
> In that case, we do not want the kernel installed route to be present
> (behavior controlled via this proc entry).

sysctl's are not free and in this case you want to add a second one to
pick and choose which data in the message you want the kernel to act on.

Why can't the userspace daemon remove the route and add the one it
prefers? Or add another route with a metric that makes it the preferred
route making the kernel one effectively moot?