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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sat, 4 Aug 2007 20:16:54 +0300
From:	"nano bug" <linnewbye@...il.com>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: source interface ping bug ?

Hello, any news about this ?



On 8/2/07, nano bug <linnewbye@...il.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: nano bug <linnewbye@...il.com>
> Date: Aug 2, 2007 10:56 PM
> Subject: Re: source interface ping bug ?
> To: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Sorry for the late reply, I have atached the strace output of eth0 and
> eth2 on kernel 2.6.20 and 2.6.22
>
> On 7/30/07, Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> wrote:
> > nano bug wrote:
> > > Can someone have a look a this and tell if it's kernel related or if I
> > > posted this in the wrong place ? Thanks.
> > >
> > Last I checked, ping did not do an SO_BINDTODEVICE even if you did -i ethX.
> > I think it just looked up the IP for that port and treated it as -i a.b.c.d.
> >
> > That said, I'm not sure why the behaviour changes for you between kernel
> > releases.
> >
> > Maybe an 'strace' of your ping command on the different kernels would help
> > figure out what the problem is?
> >
> > Ben
> >
> > --
> > Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
> > Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com


On 8/2/07, nano bug <linnewbye@...il.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: nano bug <linnewbye@...il.com>
> Date: Aug 2, 2007 10:58 PM
> Subject: Re: source interface ping bug ?
> To: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Yes I'm running NAT, I have atached the output of the iptables -t nat
> -vxnL command and the routing tables
>
> On 7/30/07, Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> wrote:
> > nano bug wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > using source interface :
> > >
> > > root@...kstar:~/iputils# ./ping -I eth2 87.248.113.14
> > > PING 87.248.113.14 (87.248.113.14) from 86.106.19.75 eth2: 56(84) bytes of data.
> > >>From 86.106.19.75 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
> >
> > > root@...kstar:~# tcpdump -i eth2 -vvv -n host 87.248.113.14 and host
> > > 86.106.19.75
> > > tcpdump: listening on eth2, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
> > > 01:19:24.292911 arp who-has 87.248.113.14 tell 86.106.19.75
> >
> >
> > Are you using (or running) NAT locally? What do your routing tables look
> > like?
> >
>
>

Download attachment "route_tables" of type "application/octet-stream" (2032 bytes)

Download attachment "strace_eth0_2.6.20" of type "application/octet-stream" (13375 bytes)

Download attachment "strace_eth0_2.6.22" of type "application/octet-stream" (13336 bytes)

Download attachment "strace_eth2_2.6.20" of type "application/octet-stream" (13335 bytes)

Download attachment "strace_eth2_2.6.22" of type "application/octet-stream" (15575 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists