linux-kernel - Re: Unplug ethernet cable, the route persists. Why?

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]

Message-ID: <20101124121826.39dd6ed1@nehalam>
Date:	Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:18:26 -0800
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	Mike Caoco <caoco2002@...oo.com>
Cc:	Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Unplug ethernet cable, the route persists.  Why?

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 11:48:03 -0800 (PST)
Mike Caoco <caoco2002@...oo.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> This may have been discussed, but all search engines couldn't give me a good answer...
> 
> I notice that when an interface is up/running, a local route is in the routing table:
> 
> $ ifconfig eth1
> eth1      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:13:20:0e:2f:ed  
>           inet addr:192.168.1.125  Bcast:192.168.1.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
>           inet6 addr: fe80::213:20ff:fe0e:2fed/64 Scope:Link
>           UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
>           RX packets:35984995 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>           TX packets:7409151 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 
>           RX bytes:3252413825 (3.2 GB)  TX bytes:1340077250 (1.3 GB)
> 
> $ ip route
> 192.168.20.0/24 dev eth0  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.20.120
> 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.1.125 
> default via 192.168.20.254 dev eth1  metric 100 
> 
> After I unplug the cable from eth1, the RUNNING flag disappears, but the route is still there:
> 
> $ ifconfig eth1
> eth1      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:13:20:0e:2f:ed  
>           inet addr:192.168.1.125  Bcast:192.168.1.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
>           inet6 addr: fe80::213:20ff:fe0e:2fed/64 Scope:Link
>           UP BROADCAST MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
>           RX packets:35985023 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>           TX packets:7409151 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 
>           RX bytes:3252415633 (3.2 GB)  TX bytes:1340077250 (1.3 GB)
> 
> $ ip route
> 192.168.20.0/24 dev eth0  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.20.120 
> 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src 192.168.1.125 
> default via 192.168.20.254 dev eth1  metric 100 
> 
> And that *prevents* from using the default route to reach 192.168.1/24 subnet after eth1 is out.
> 
> I looked at the code, it seems the IFF_RUNNING flag change is ignored in dev_change_flags():
> 
> void __dev_notify_flags(struct net_device *dev, unsigned int old_flags)
> {
>         .....
>         if (dev->flags & IFF_UP &&
>             (changes & ~(IFF_UP | IFF_PROMISC | IFF_ALLMULTI | IFF_VOLATILE)))
>                 call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_CHANGE, dev);
> }
> 
> I searched in the Internet, and saw some people suggest using an application listener (eg, netplug) to remove the route. 
> 
> My question is why cannot the kernel remove the route automatically when the link becomes down?  Why should this complexity be pushed to the user to find a program to do that?
> 

Because there is no reason for the kernel to not expect the link to come back.
It is up to user space to do routing policy. For desktop/laptop users this is
done typically with NetworkManager or Connman; for routers this is done with
Quagga; and for servers use other tools.

If the kernel automatically removed the route, it would cause routing daemons
to recompute the route table (and propagate the change) every time a cable
got pulled or NIC needed to be reset.


-- 
--
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/