netdev - DECnet routing rule resolution

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: <1175185450.1636.124.camel@quoit.chygwyn.com>
Date:	Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:24:10 +0100
From:	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>
To:	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Patrick Caulfield <pcaulfie@...hat.com>
Subject: DECnet routing rule resolution

Hi,

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,

Steve.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html