linux-kernel - ipv4 regression in 2.6.31 ?

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

Message-Id: <20090914150935.cc895a3c.skraw@ithnet.com>
Date:	Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:09:35 +0200
From:	Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@...net.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net
Subject: ipv4 regression in 2.6.31 ?

Hello all,

today we experienced some sort of regression in 2.6.31 ipv4 implementation, or
at least some incompatibility with former 2.6.30.X kernels.

We have the following situation:

                                       ---------- vlan1@...0 192.168.2.1/24
                                      /
host A 192.168.1.1/24 eth0  -------<router>            host B
                                      \
                                       ---------- eth1 192.168.3.1/24

Now, if you route 192.168.1.0/24 via interface vlan1@...0 on host B and let
host A ping 192.168.2.1 everything works. But if you route 192.168.1.0/24 via
interface eth1 on host B and let host A ping 192.168.2.1 you get no reply.
With tcpdump we see the icmp packets arrive at vlan1@...0, but no icmp echo
reply being generated neither on vlan1 nor eth1.
Kernels 2.6.30.X and below do not show this behaviour.
Is this intended? Do we need to reconfigure something to restore the old
behaviour?

-- 
Regards,
Stephan

--
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/