Re: [2.4 PATCH] bugfix: ARP respond on all devices

[David S. Miller]

On 19 Aug 2003 15:27:48 -0400
Daniel Gryniewicz <dang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 15:21, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 03:17:00PM -0400, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 14:48, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > In my experience everybody who wants a different behaviour use some
> > > > more or less broken stateful L2/L3 switching hacks (like ipvs) or
> > > > having broken routing tables. While such hacks may be valid for some
> > > > uses they should not impact the default case.
> > > 
> > > So, changing your default route is a "hack"?  That's all that's
> > > necessary.  You can even do it with "route del/route add".
> > 
> > Necessary to do what exactly? 
> 
> Cause Linux to issue an arp request with a tell address not on the
> interface sending the arp.

Nobody has shown this to be invalid.  In fact, it has been shown
clearly that systems not responding to such ARP requests are buggy.

The only thing a system implementor can claim this accomplishes
is "pseudo security", and it barely even provides that.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/