Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:33948 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751447AbaICFDh (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Sep 2014 01:03:37 -0400 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:03:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20140902.150326.1420682815750767731.davem@davemloft.net> (sfid-20140903_070345_892473_02D849D2) To: hideaki.yoshifuji@miraclelinux.com Cc: johannes@sipsolutions.net, hannes@stressinduktion.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org Subject: Re: [RFC] net: ipv4: drop unicast encapsulated in L2 multicast From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <540675F2.1030308@miraclelinux.com> References: <1409133238.26515.13.camel@localhost> <1409650573.1808.11.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> <540675F2.1030308@miraclelinux.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 10:59:14 +0900 > Upper-layer needs to cope eith situation of seeing packets with > "incorrect" L2 header anyway (e.g., in promiscous mode). > I do not see much advantage to drop them here. It's required to prevent wireless nodes from using the shared wireless group keys (used for multicast transmission) to inject unicast frames. The RFCs really do specify this at least on the ipv4 side.