netdev - Re: [RFC net-next] ipv6: Use destination address determined by IPVS

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.LFD.2.03.1310170115320.1917@ssi.bg>
Date:	Thu, 17 Oct 2013 01:50:38 +0300 (EEST)
From:	Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
To:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
cc:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
	YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 
	<yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>, lvs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Mark Brooks <mark@...dbalancer.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next] ipv6: Use destination address determined by
 IPVS


	Hello,

On Wed, 16 Oct 2013, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:

> To have ip6_dst_check working, there must to be a valid link from
> the rt6_info to the fib6_node. Otherwise we cannot check the serial
> number. As I currently see we also need a link from the fib6_node down
> to the dst entry for resource management. Thus we would have to insert
> the special dst-entry with RTF_GATEWAY and non-null rt6i_gateway back
> into the fib and have it globally visible. This could have unforseen
> side effects. We still cache all dst entries in the fib. One think I
> foresee as a possible problem is the automatic aggregation of ECMP routes,
> too.

	I'm still not sure what is needed. Looking at
ip6_pol_route(), I see that everything should just work: for
routes without RTF_GATEWAY flag we return cloned route
from rt6_alloc_cow() with valid rt6i_gateway. I still
didn't tested the problem myself, so I'll stop with the
comments before that.

> We should provide something similar to what IPv4 does with the
> KNOWN_NH flag. I guess my idea with exchanging rt6i_dst as nexthop would
> solve this without too much hassle but this would have to be checked by
> implementing it.
> 
> I don't think that storing a changed nexthop in the ipv6 cb is that nice and
> maintainable.

	Agreed. I'm not going to test that change. I'll test
latest net-next without any changes to see where exactly is
the failure because the IPv6 routing seems capable for what
we need. I have problems with my setup, so I'll need some
days. As Simon is also testing the problem, he can find the
reason before me.

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
--
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