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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <c737bd4c-7cd4-11f0-3906-3a9018170888@kernel.org> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2023 08:43:09 -0600 From: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org> To: Tj <linux@....tj>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com> Subject: Re: IPv6 address scope not set to operator-configured value On 9/14/23 7:51 AM, Tj wrote: > Apologies if this doesn't thread - I've had to manually add the > In-Reply-To header because I did not receive Guillaume's reply and only > discovered it via the email archive. > > Not being able to set the scope causes a problem. The scenario in which > I need to use it is interfaces with multiple global and ULA addresses > where a multicast-DNS responder needs to choose the correct address to > send in reply to queries. This affects both avahi and systemd-resolved > which currently seem to chose almost - but not quite - at random; but > enough so that it often breaks. > > E.g: if the query originates from a ULA address the response should give > a ULA address; if the query originates from a global then a global > address, etc. In fact, being able to simply set scopes and enable the > responder to be configured to use a specific scope would be helpful. > It'd certainly avoid having to hard-code logic to determine what address > ranges represent a particular logical zone. We cannot change the behavior of an existing API. We have tried that many times in the past, and inevitably most changes are reverted.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists