netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2] ip route: error out on multiple via without nexthop keyword

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:   Fri, 20 Jan 2017 09:38:09 -0800
From:   Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To:     David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] ip route: error out on multiple via without
 nexthop keyword

On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 09:08:21 -0800
David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:

> To specify multiple nexthops in a route the user is expected to use the
> "nexthop" keyword which ip route uses to create the RTA_MULTIPATH.
> However, ip route always accepts multiple 'via' keywords where only the
> last one is used in the route leading to confusion. For example, ip
> accepts this syntax:
>     $ ip ro add vrf red  1.1.1.0/24 via 10.100.1.18 via 10.100.2.18
> 
> but the route entered inserted by the kernel is just the last gateway:
>     1.1.1.0/24 via 10.100.2.18 dev eth2
> 
> which is not the full request from the user. Detect the presense of
> multiple 'via' and give the user a hint to add nexthop:
> 
>     $ ip ro add vrf red  1.1.1.0/24 via 10.100.1.18 via 10.100.2.18
>     Error: argument "via" is wrong: use nexthop syntax to specify multiple via
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>

Applied thanks.