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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <52B16805.2010601@6wind.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:16:53 +0100
From:	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To:	Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>,
	Kristian Evensen <kristian.evensen@...il.com>
CC:	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RTM_DELROUTE on interface going down - when to send?

Le 17/12/2013 15:01, Michal Kubecek a écrit :
> 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.
Sure. Note that this fix is regularly proposed, another pointer:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/195516/
--
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