netdev - Re: ip rule and/or route problem in 2.6.37-rc5+

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]

Date:	Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:22:23 +0100
From:	Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>, greearb@...delatech.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ip rule and/or route problem in 2.6.37-rc5+

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 18:22, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote:
>> Tom, please acknowledge this regression you've added to the tree.
>
> Acknowledged.  Looking at it.
>
> Tom

This is definitely a regression, and the fault is definitely with this code.

Indeed, the code is fundamentally flawed.  I've been trying to come up
with a fix, but I'm beginning to think we're barking up the wrong tree
here.
Currently my preference is leaning towards using setsockopt(SOL_IP,
IP_TRANSPARENT) [possibly with some sk->transparent tcp inheritence
fixes] instead.
I definitely want this functionality though, since it's wonderfully
useful for testing (and for serving as well).

Could we please revert this ( 4465b469008bc03b98a1b8df4e9ae501b6c69d4b
) and make sure the revert makes it into 2.6.37?  We definitely don't
want to ship 2.6.37 with this patch in its current state.

-- Maciej
--
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