netdev - Re: v6/sit tunnels and VRFs

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:   Fri, 13 Apr 2018 14:31:19 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Jeff Barnhill <0xeffeff@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: v6/sit tunnels and VRFs

On 4/13/18 2:23 PM, Jeff Barnhill wrote:
> It seems that the ENETUNREACH response is still desirable in the VRF
> case since the only difference (when using VRF vs. not) is that the
> lookup should be restrained to a specific VRF.

VRF is just policy routing to a table. If the table wants the lookup to
stop, then it needs a default route. What you are referring to is the
lookup goes through all tables and does not find an answer so it fails
with -ENETUNREACH. I do not know of any way to make that happen with the
existing default route options and in the past 2+ years we have not hit
any s/w that discriminates -ENETUNREACH from -EHOSTUNREACH.

I take it this is code from your internal code base. Why does it care
between those two failures?