On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It's a debug level printk. Many people don't log debug messages on
> > the grounds they are just using it, not debugging it :-). Besides,
> > the message isn't that illuminating until you look at the code.
>
> Exactly, it is debugging message, because the situation is bug.
But then you go on to say it is could be a user attempt at network
spoofing so it should be LOG_INFO at least. There should also be
a limit on how frequently it is generated or you have a trivially
exploitable denial of service...
> > I don't get it. How can an unprivileged Linux user add addresses
> > to interfaces and send out bogus packets anyway?
>
> Not add, but send.
>
> bind(s, 127.0.0.1)
> sendto(s, 193.233.7.65)
Somehow I had it in my head that you couldn't send IP packets out an
interface unless the bound source address matched one of the
interfaces' addresses.
> > necessary in the kernel. If anything it should be *documented*!
>
> It is documented in RFCs. And it is not policy but MUST NOT statement.
Let me clarify it then, there should be a document describing
what has changed between 2.0 and 2.2 and what effect it might
have. Expecting users to have studied the RFCs and to then compare
the source for 2.0 and 2.2 is not a suitable policy for a stable
kernel release!
Mike
--
A train stops at a train station, a bus stops at a bus station.
On my desk I have a work station...
.----------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Mike Jagdis | Internet: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| Roan Technology Ltd. | |
| 54A Peach Street, Wokingham | Telephone: +44 118 989 0403 |
| RG40 1XG, ENGLAND | Fax: +44 118 989 1195 |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------'
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
