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  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]
Date:	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:24:10 +0100
From:	Steven Whitehouse <>
To:	Thomas Graf <>,
Cc:	Patrick Caulfield <>
Subject: DECnet routing rule resolution


One of the effects of the recent tidy up of the DECnet routing rules
code is that we are no longer able to see the difference between reading
a rule of type FR_ACT_UNREACHABLE returning -ENETUNREACH and simply
running out of rules to look at, which also returns the same thing.

The DECnet code used to return -ESRCH if it ran out of rules in which
case the test in dn_route.c (which resulted in DECnet falling back to
endnode routing in the -ESRCH case) no longer works.

So there seems to be several options to try and solve this: one is to
change the error return for running out of rules in
fib_rules.c:fib_rules_lookup() to something else (but then that has a
knock on effect in the ipv4 code). Another is to add the "not found"
error return as a parameter in the struct fib_rules_ops so that both
protocols can have their preferred error return. Both solutions seem a
bit messy, so I thought I'd ask for some guidance on this before writing
a patch,


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists