netdev - Re: RTM_DELROUTE on interface going 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: <20131217140101.GB11216@unicorn.suse.cz>
Date:	Tue, 17 Dec 2013 15:01:02 +0100
From:	Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:	Kristian Evensen <kristian.evensen@...il.com>
Cc:	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RTM_DELROUTE on interface going down - when to send?

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 01:11:32PM +0100, Kristian Evensen wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz> wrote:
> >
> > Before I start with the patch, I would like to ask: would it be more
> > appropriate to send the message when the route is marked as dead or when
> > it is actually deleted from the trie?
> 
> I noticed the same thing a few months ago and submitted a patch
> (http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg254106.html). However, it was
> not applied because it would cause too much traffic on large-scale
> routers (see davem's reply here
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg254186.html).

Thank you for the pointer. However, I agree that the inconsistencies
(IPv4 vs. IPv6, RTM_DELROUTE vs. RTM_NEWROUTE) are really unfortunate.

                                                       Michal Kubecek

--
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