Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: allow userspace to add IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC addresses

2018-02-27 Thread Sabrina Dubroca
2018-02-27, 10:47:08 -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Sabrina Dubroca > Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:13:28 +0100 > > > 2018-02-26, 12:11:27 -0500, David Miller wrote: > >> From: Sabrina Dubroca > >> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:56:19 +0100 > >> > >>

Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: allow userspace to add IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC addresses

2018-02-27 Thread David Miller
From: Sabrina Dubroca Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 15:13:28 +0100 > 2018-02-26, 12:11:27 -0500, David Miller wrote: >> From: Sabrina Dubroca >> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:56:19 +0100 >> >> That's completely different to this case, which is a bonfide

Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: allow userspace to add IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC addresses

2018-02-27 Thread Sabrina Dubroca
2018-02-26, 12:11:27 -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Sabrina Dubroca > Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:56:19 +0100 > > > 2018-02-26, 10:57:11 -0500, David Miller wrote: > >> Userland is now repsonsible for implementing correct behavior when it > >> takes over this task, and

Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: allow userspace to add IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC addresses

2018-02-26 Thread David Miller
From: Sabrina Dubroca Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 17:56:19 +0100 > 2018-02-26, 10:57:11 -0500, David Miller wrote: >> Userland is now repsonsible for implementing correct behavior when it >> takes over this task, and therefore the kernel has no say in the >> matter of proper

Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: allow userspace to add IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC addresses

2018-02-26 Thread Sabrina Dubroca
2018-02-26, 10:57:11 -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Sabrina Dubroca > Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:41:32 +0100 > > > What are you concerned about, if we let userspace set this flag? > > I am concerned that the kernel is no longer in charge of making sure > that all of the

Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: allow userspace to add IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC addresses

2018-02-26 Thread David Miller
From: Sabrina Dubroca Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:41:32 +0100 > What are you concerned about, if we let userspace set this flag? I am concerned that the kernel is no longer in charge of making sure that all of the RFC rules are met in this area. Userland is now repsonsible

Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: allow userspace to add IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC addresses

2018-02-26 Thread Sabrina Dubroca
2018-02-21, 15:34:21 -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Sabrina Dubroca > Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:17:17 +0100 > > > 2018-02-20, 10:25:41 -0700, David Ahern wrote: > >> On 2/20/18 9:43 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > >> > According to RFC 4429 (section 3.1), adding new IPv6

Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: allow userspace to add IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC addresses

2018-02-21 Thread David Miller
From: Sabrina Dubroca Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 19:17:17 +0100 > 2018-02-20, 10:25:41 -0700, David Ahern wrote: >> On 2/20/18 9:43 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: >> > According to RFC 4429 (section 3.1), adding new IPv6 addresses as >> > optimistic addresses is acceptable, as long

Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: allow userspace to add IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC addresses

2018-02-20 Thread Sabrina Dubroca
2018-02-20, 10:25:41 -0700, David Ahern wrote: > On 2/20/18 9:43 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > According to RFC 4429 (section 3.1), adding new IPv6 addresses as > > optimistic addresses is acceptable, as long as the implementation > > follows some rules: > > > >* Optimistic DAD SHOULD only

Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: allow userspace to add IFA_F_OPTIMISTIC addresses

2018-02-20 Thread David Ahern
On 2/20/18 9:43 AM, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > According to RFC 4429 (section 3.1), adding new IPv6 addresses as > optimistic addresses is acceptable, as long as the implementation > follows some rules: > >* Optimistic DAD SHOULD only be used when the implementation is aware > that the