netdev - Re: on-link assumption in ipv4 routing cache

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 03 Nov 2008 17:32:07 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	vladislav.yasevich@...com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: on-link assumption in ipv4 routing cache

From: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:47:44 -0400

> Ok, I've found the code and the explanation, but I think there is
> a small bug here that's been around a very long time.  There is absolutely
> no checking for the interface state.  This means that if the interface
> is brought down, we are still going to attempt to route through it.
> That seems broken, since the interface was administratively brought down.
> 
> I've actually tried to do this with my test app.  I've set it to connect
> over a given interface, brought the interface down, and then issued the
> connect().  The result is that the app hung until tcp_syn_retries SYNs have
> been issued and then returned error.
> 
> I've got no issues against on-link assumption as long as there are some smarts
> behind it.  The least we could do is use a running interface.

I agree with you that this behavior is at best sub-optimal.

I'm happy to entertain patches the try to make this
area more sane.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html