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  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]
Date:	Sun, 27 Jan 2008 02:11:26 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>
Cc:	Joonwoo Park <joonwpark81@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 9816] New: cannot replace route

On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 04:19:34PM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 03:27:00PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com> writes:
> > 
> > > And, after re-reading this bugzilla report, I'm pretty sure the thing
> > > should be done with 'ip route change' (but I didn't check if 2.6.24
> > > knows about this...).
> > 
> > $ man ip
> > [...]
> >    ip route add - add new route
> >    ip route change - change route
> >    ip route replace - change or add new one
> > [...]
> > 
> > According to this "replace" should be a superset of "change".
> 
> According to this "replace" should be ...ambiguous. I could read this
> "my/proper(?) way":
> 
>     ip route replace - change with new one or add new one
> 
> And ...man could be wrong too after all! (...but not me!)

After some checks it seems man is right - ie. WRT iproute.c! (...hmm?)
And you read this right: '"replace" should be a superset of "change"'.

> > Also, please check out comment#3, it also fails for replacing a route
> > with something different (it's a route to an ipsec tunnel).

But comment#3 is "ambiguous"... It looks like you don't want to show
us too much... So, apparently you change the route, but it seems this
route exists; you have this:
  10.0.0.0/8 dev eth0  scope link 
but probably also something like this:
  default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth0 src 10.204.0.116

So, I doubt there is any "real" change attempted here. It looks more
like a question if program should allow for changing the form of route
entries even if they mean the same, and if this should be reported as
error at all? But maybe I miss something...

Jarek P.
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists