netdev - Re: [RFC] ipv6: don't flush routes when setting loopback down

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: <m1k4hxuzcq.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date:	Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:17:09 -0800
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc:	Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	brian.haley@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, maheshkelkar@...il.com,
	lorenzo@...gle.com, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] ipv6: don't flush routes when setting loopback down

Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com> writes:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:56:32 +0100
> Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:38:17AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> > Jiri Bohac <jbohac@...e.cz> wrote:
>> > > I have the feeling that Eric's patch is the safest solution we
>> > > have so far:
>> > Eric's patch has other regressions, see the discussion.
>> 
>> What regression do you mean? I have read the whole discussion
>> thoroughly. You only say in one message that deleting ::1 would
>> propagate to routing daemons. And Eric correctly stated that
>> people couldn't hit this, because  deleting ::1 would break
>> things on its own.
>> 
>> Is there a real problem with Eric's fix?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>
> If address is assigned to loopback interface (other than ::1) then
> Eric's fix doesn't work.  It is common to use an additional address
> on the lo device when doing routing protocols.

Sigh.

I just got back to looking through the rest of my failures in 2.6.37 and
despite it looking like it worked when i tested it, your patch doesn't
actually work on my real work load that has broken.

At least your change that confirmed that the root problem is somewhere
in the routing.

Eric


--
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