linux-kernel - Re: ARP Bug?

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:	Sat, 15 Dec 2007 02:32:30 +0100 (CET)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To:	"Gosney, JeremiX" <jeremix.gosney@...el.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Peters, Gordon" <gordon.peters@...el.com>,
	"Sy, Dely L" <dely.l.sy@...el.com>
Subject: Re: ARP Bug?


On Dec 14 2007 17:11, Gosney, JeremiX wrote:
>Subject: ARP Bug?
>
>We've noticed the 2.6-based Linux systems in our test lab are
>experiencing some "ARP flux"-like symptoms.  
>
>The systems reply with eth0's hardware address to all ARP requests,

If you have the same subnet on multiple interfaces, only the
first interface will be served.

Case closed?

>regardless of the IP being queried.  Because of this, the system will
>only send and receive packets on eth0; if eth0 is brought down, the
>system is unreachable even though it still has several active
>connections.  With eth0 unplugged, none of the other interfaces are
>reachable (this is presumably a side-effect caused by the switch ARP
>cache.) Failover routes are defined in the routing table, but the system
>still will not send/receive packets out those interfaces.
>

I am not sure ARP even uses the routing table.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/