l2ping(8) and -f switch

[Maksim Yevmenkin]

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Alexander Best <arundel at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Mon Mar 28 11, Maksim Yevmenkin wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Iain Hibbert <plunky at rya-online.net> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon Mar 28 11, Iain Hibbert wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Alexander Best wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > thus i believe making the -f switch only accessable to super-users (in
>> >> > > accordance with ping(8)/ping6(8)) would increase security.
>> >> >
>> >> > what stops the user from recompiling l2ping without this restriction?
>> >>
>> >> nothing. but what stops him from recompiling ping(8) or ping6(8) without the
>> >> restriction? still it's there.
>> >
>> > AFAIK you need superuser privileges to even send ICMP_ECHO packets, thats
>> > why ping is traditionally a suid program and making a new binary won't
>> > help normal users..  I'm guessing that l2ping doesn't have the same
>> > restrictions?
>>
>> Guys,
>>
>> first of all thanks for the patch.
>>
>> i think one really needs to understand what "flood" really means in
>> l2ping(8). "flood" ping(8) basically floods the link with icmp echo
>> requests without waiting for remote system to reply. yes, this is
>> potentially dangerous and thus its reasonable to require super-user
>> privileges. "flood" l2ping(8) is NOT the same. all l2ping(8) does is
>> "flood" mode
>>
>> 1) sends l2cap echo request
>> 2) waits for l2cap echo response (or timeout)
>> 3) repeats
>>
>> in other words, there is no delay between each l2cap echo
>> request-response transaction. its not really "flood". i'm not sure if
>> it really worth to go all the way to restricting this. however, if
>> people think that it should be restricted, i will not object.
>
> how about removing the term "flood" from the l2ping(2) man page, if the -f
> semantics can't actually be called that way?

that would be fine. l2ping(8) -h calls it

-f         No delay (sort of flood)

and l2ping(8) man page calls it

-f      ``Flood'' ping, i.e., no delay between packets.

it would be nice to make those consistent :) i'm not sure what the
best name would be though.

thanks,
max