| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20131115134811.GF26901@order.stressinduktion.org> Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 14:48:11 +0100 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org> To: Kamala R <kamala@...stanetworks.com> Cc: davem@...emloft.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: IPv6: Blackhole route support partial ? Hi! On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 03:06:28PM +0530, Kamala R wrote: > That's right. We don't show the error for IPv4 routes as it follows a > different path in kernel while dumping the information as compared > with IPv6. Therefore, "ip route show" does not show an error while "ip > -6 route show" does. So it looks to me that this a kernel problem > which needs to be fixed for consistent behavior. The simplest way to > fix this seems to be to set the error to zero while dumping the > information in the v6 path. I have tested this solution and found that > it works fine. Do you think this is the way to go ? If I understand you correctly you propose to drop the output of the error attribute for IPv6 routes too? It is not that important that those two outputs are identical and if you make a change, please introduce the error propagation for IPv4 so one can see the socket errors for those routes, too. I wouldn't drop those for IPv6 just for consistency reasons. Greetings, Hannes -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists