netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] IPV4: remove addresses and routes when carrier is lost

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: <484574FC.5050004@trash.net>
Date:	Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:44:44 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
CC:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen.hemminger@...tta.com>,
	Lennart Sorensen <lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] IPV4: remove addresses and routes when carrier is
 lost

Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:03:46 +0200
> Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 11:05:24 -0400
>>> lsorense@...lub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 04:52:49PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>>>> This patch adds a new configuration sysctl that causes link loss to clear
>>>>> FIB state in the same way as admin down. This allows for routing daemons
>>>>> like Quagga which have option to remove routes when carrier is lost.
>>>>>
>>>>> This has been a long standing problem with Quagga on Linux with complaints
>>>>> on the developers list going back to 2004. Fixing it properly, so the routing 
>>>>> daemon manages the RIB, and the kernel manages the FIB, requires changes to
>>>>> both parts.
>>>> Does this cover only the local route for the interface, or all routes
>>>> assigned staticly to the interface too?
>>> The patch makes carrier down == interface down. So the same
>>> behaviour as doing 'ip link set dev eth3 down'
>>
>> Can't the routing daemon simply ignore routes with a
>> device that has no carrier?
>>
> 
> It does that, but the problem is that packets get routed in kernel
> to interfaces without carrier, rather than being correctly rerouted
> over alternate paths.

I see, thanks for the explanation.
--
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