netdev - Re: Adding routes to another table: no such process

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:57:49 +0200
From:	Ignacy Gawędzki <i@....fr>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Adding routes to another table: no such process

On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 04:13:06PM +0200, thus spake Ignacy Gawedzki:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm having a hard time setting some routes on a router and can't find any
> relevant information anywhere, so I resort to asking on this list.
> 
> The router has one interface, say eth0, with configured address 10.0.0.1/32.
> 
> Now I would like to do:
> 
>   ip rule add from 10.0.0.1 table 100
>   ip route add 10.0.0.2/32 dev eth0 table 100
>   ip route add 10.0.0.3/32 via 10.0.0.2 table 100
> 
> but I get
> 
>   RTNETLINK answers: No such process

Okay, I think I got it right, at last.  Apparently it all depends on how the
rules are set up.

The rule to lookup table 100 when the source address is 10.0.0.1 doesn't
concern the general situation of route to 10.0.0.2/32 (for which packets may
have any source address).

The solution in my case is to put

  ip rule add to 10.0.0.0/8 table 100

Cheers,

Ignacy

-- 
:wq!
--
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