netdev - Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 8320] New: replacing route in kernel doesn't send netlink message

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: <4623029A.2090906@trash.net>
Date:	Mon, 16 Apr 2007 06:59:06 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Milan Kocián <milon@...cz>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"bugme-daemon@...nel-bugs.osdl.org" 
	<bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 8320] New: replacing route in kernel doesn't
 send netlink message

Milan Kocián wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 20:19 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> 
> 
>>I think having notifications for this case makes sense (IIRC I used
>>to use a similar patch some time ago, but can't find it right now).
>>But we need to indicate somehow that it is a replacement and not a
>>completely new route, either by sending a RTM_DELROUTE for the old
>>route first (which would match what devinet does for addresses)
>>or by echoing the NLM_F_REPLACE flag. The former would probably be
>>easier for userspace to understand since it wouldn't need to
>>replicate the replacement logic just to find out which rule got
>>replaced.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Hard to tell what is better. I slightly tried to test my patch with
> quagga routing daemon. And then I tested second case: send RTM_DELROUTE
> before RTM_NEWROUTE. Quagga updates internal rib in both cases (as I saw
> in debug logs). I was in fear that quagga will try to install sefl route
> but it doesn't catch.
> So from my point of view is all the same :).


Looking at some old code of mine, it would treat a simple RTM_NEWROUTE
without deletion in advance incorrectly, but it also would ignore
NLM_F_REPLACE. Quagga doing the right thing seems to be a result of
the fact that it doesn't care about some of the routes attributes and
treats NEWROUTE messages as replacements as long as the attributes it
cares about match.

RTM_DELROUTE + RTM_NEWROUTE seem to be safer, although you're correct
that it might cause userspace to perform some action upon receiving
the DELROUTE message since the update is non-atomic. So I really don't
know, I'm in favour of having notifications for replacements, but I
fear we might break something.

-
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