netdev - Re: net 04/05: fib_rules: allow to delete local rule

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

Date:	Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:38:47 +0100
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>
CC:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, robert@...julf.net
Subject: Re: net 04/05: fib_rules: allow to delete local rule

Alexey Kuznetsov wrote:
> Hello!
> 
>> Nice. I recall there was a lot of sentiment against this back
>> when - in particular from Alexey. I cant remember the details
> 
> Indeed, I refused to do this.
> 
> Sometimes, we have to determine that an address is local in a context
> where we do not have information to form a proper request to rule database.
> In this case we do direct lookup in fixed table, which is designated
> to contain local routes. So that rule 0 was hardwired to lookup in the
> same table.

Yes, you have to carefully set up your rules preceeding the local
rule when using this. Using marks or oif should work fine without
affecting the cases where we just need some information like the
device or addresses.

> Frankly, it will work provided we do not require too much of self-consistency.
> Those days I could not stand this, but it is not illegal.

In fact, you should already be able to do this by moving the
contents of the local table to a different one :)
--
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