From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [patch net-next] ipv6: allow userspace to create address with IFLA_F_TEMPORARY flag Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:59:31 +0200 Message-ID: <20131024165931.GA1475@minipsycho.orion> References: <1382622355-6500-1-git-send-email-jiri@resnulli.us> <20131024140253.GF15744@order.stressinduktion.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, jmorris@namei.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, kaber@trash.net, thaller@redhat.com, stephen@networkplumber.org Return-path: Received: from mail-ee0-f53.google.com ([74.125.83.53]:43253 "EHLO mail-ee0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754747Ab3JXQ7f (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:59:35 -0400 Received: by mail-ee0-f53.google.com with SMTP id c13so1267475eek.40 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2013 09:59:34 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131024140253.GF15744@order.stressinduktion.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 04:02:53PM CEST, hannes@stressinduktion.org wrote: >On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 03:45:55PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> This is needed in order to implement userspace address configuration, >> namely ip6-privacy (rfc4941) in NetworkManager. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko >> --- >> net/ipv6/addrconf.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c >> index cd3fb30..962c7c9 100644 >> --- a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c >> +++ b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c >> @@ -3715,7 +3715,8 @@ inet6_rtm_newaddr(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh) >> return -ENODEV; >> >> /* We ignore other flags so far. */ >> - ifa_flags = ifm->ifa_flags & (IFA_F_NODAD | IFA_F_HOMEADDRESS); >> + ifa_flags = ifm->ifa_flags & (IFA_F_NODAD | IFA_F_HOMEADDRESS | >> + IFA_F_TEMPORARY); >> >> ifa = ipv6_get_ifaddr(net, pfx, dev, 1); >> if (ifa == NULL) { > >Hm, the kernel will pick up IFA_F_TEMPORARY marked addresses and do ipv6 address >regeneration (depending on lifetimes). Is this intended? I think that that behaviour is valid. It is in compliance with valid lft and preferred lft behaviour. > >Btw. I am very interested in this topic as there is currently work in the IETF >to move away from eui-48 generation of addresses: > >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses/ > >This needs to be done in userspace as we depend on a secret generated at >system install time. > >Greetings, > > Hannes >