netdev - Re: [PATCH] IP: Increment INADDRERRORS if routing for a packet is not successful

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1006021506560.32431@router.home>
Date:	Wed, 2 Jun 2010 15:11:35 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	shemminger@...tta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IP: Increment INADDRERRORS if routing for a packet is
 not successful

On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Eric Dumazet wrote:

>
> Say we have eth0 on 192.168.0.1/24 and eth1 on 192.168.0.2/24
>
> Then we cannot use rp_filter = 1, even with unicast trafic.
>
> I really dont understand why you would setup rp_filter in such a
> situation. This wont work.

rp_filter was setup in the past and it worked. Stephen fixed it in 2.6.31
for multicast and thus suddenly multicast stopped working on secondary
interfaces when we moved to 2.6.32. rp_filter having to be off is okay but
it does not feel correct.

> Now, I agree we should have a counter somewhere to help admins to
> understand their error ;)

Ah. Good.

> Here is patch I am currently testing.
>
> I finaly created a new counter, because its a linux specific check.

Looks good which does not say too much given my limited networking
knowledge.

Reviewed-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
--
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