linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: ipv6: fix __rt6_purge_dflt_routers when forwarding is not set on all ifaces

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMzD94TmFiJRfgLp44z1GQ1zzg2Zy7o2Oa9GTTCed0kj5tLdLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Sep 2020 08:50:18 -0700
From:   Brian Vazquez <brianvv@...gle.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Brian Vazquez <brianvv.kernel@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ipv6: fix __rt6_purge_dflt_routers when forwarding
 is not set on all ifaces

Hey David,

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 7:57 AM David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/1/20 1:56 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 8:58 AM Brian Vazquez <brianvv@...gle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The problem is exposed when the system has multiple ifaces and
> >> forwarding is enabled on a subset of them, __rt6_purge_dflt_routers will
> >> clean the default route on all the ifaces which is not desired.
> >>
> >> This patches fixes that by cleaning only the routes where the iface has
> >> forwarding enabled.
> >>
> >> Fixes: z ("net: ipv6: Fix processing of RAs in presence of VRF")
>
> are you sure that is a Fixes tag for this problem? looking at that
> change it only handles RA for tables beyond the main table; it does not
> change the logic of how many or which routes are purged.

That commit also added RT6_TABLE_HAS_DFLT_ROUTER so I thought that was
the commit needed to be mentioned. But probably it shouldn't?
Also Am I missing something or this is only called on on the sysctl path?

>
>
>