Hannes Frederic Sowa <han...@stressinduktion.org> writes: > Sorry for answering so late...
No problem. There is no rush here AFAICS. Thanks for taking the time to look at this. > What do you think about simply using IN6_ADDR_GEN_MODE_RANDOM? Yes, that's fine with me (actually what I first used :) >> I guess we should check &net->ipv6.devconf_dflt->stable_secret too >> before choosing the default mode. IN6_ADDR_GEN_MODE_STABLE_PRIVACY is a >> more approproate default if a default secret is set. IMHO, this should >> really be the case without the proposed change too, but it isn't. The >> current behaviour confuses me: Setting 'default' changes all existing >> interfaces, but does not change the default for new interfaces. Is that >> right? > > Nope, that is a good point. I think we should do that unconditionally. > If we have a stable secret set, which we can use, we always should use > this address generation mode. Can you send the addition of this as a > separate patch so we can propose it for stable? Otherwise I can do that, > too. I can do that if it can wait for whenever I get around to actually submit this. No guarantee that will be in time for v4.5. >>> My proposal would be to use the stable privacy generator in case the >>> device does not have a device address for EUI-48 generation with a >>> secret which we simply generate on the stack. Let's factor out the part >>> of the generator which depends on the inet6_dev and cnf bits for that. >> >> Not sure I get this part either. The point was to have stable addresses >> for the lifetime of the netdev. We can generate the secret on the >> stack, but we will still need to stash it somewhere. That could of >> course be to a new field. But I don't see the point since there is no >> way you can combine this mode with IN6_ADDR_GEN_MODE_STABLE_PRIVACY. >> Only one mode can be active at, and that mode can then own the secret. > > Ok, your argument makes sense. > >> As long as we can manage to introduce this without changing any existing >> behaviour, of course. > > Besides the naming I think your patch looks fine. Thanks! Will fixup that and formally submit when I find some time. Bjørn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
