netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next, v5] netlink: add IGMP/MLD join/leave notifications

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: <CADXeF1GoaVbobrTe99R0FVUuxcWxxaH=XCOusCq=+vS1QvEc9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:43:58 +0900
From: Yuyang Huang <yuyanghuang@...gle.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, 
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, 
	roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, jiri@...nulli.us, stephen@...workplumber.org, 
	jimictw@...gle.com, prohr@...gle.com, liuhangbin@...il.com, 
	nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, andrew@...n.ch, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>, 
	Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>, Patrick Ruddy <pruddy@...tta.att-mail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next, v5] netlink: add IGMP/MLD join/leave notifications

>TBH I'm not an expert on IPv6 address scopes, why do we want to ignore
>it now? Some commit or RFC we can refer to?

For IPv6, I think rfc3484 and rfc4193 talk about address scope
selection. However, I am not aware if we have any clear definition for
IPv4 addresses.

Based on previous suggestions from Paolo, we should make IPv4 and IPv6
rtm_scope consistent. RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE could be a good fit.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/1a4af543-d217-4bc4-b411-a0ab84a31dda@redhat.com/

>Perhaps you could add a new member to inet6_fill_args to force the
>scope to always be set to universe?

Thanks, I think this will avoid me affecting existing usage. I will
apply this in the next patch.

Thanks,
Yuyang

On Wed, Dec 11, 2024 at 9:50 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 12:19:11 +0900 Yuyang Huang wrote:
> > >u8 scope = RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE;
> > >struct nlmsghdr *nlh;
> > >if (ipv6_addr_scope(&ifmca->mca_addr) & IFA_SITE)
> > scope = RT_SCOPE_SITE;
> >
> > Is it acceptable, or should I update the old logic to always set
> > ‘RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE’?
>
> TBH I'm not an expert on IPv6 address scopes, why do we want to ignore
> it now? Some commit or RFC we can refer to?
>
> Perhaps you could add a new member to inet6_fill_args to force the
> scope to always be set to universe?