netdev - Re: [PATCH 4/4] ipv4: mark nexthop as dead when it's subnet becomes unreachable

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]

Date:	Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:06:30 +0200 (EET)
From:	Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
To:	Sergey Popovich <popovich_sergei@...l.ru>
cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ipv4: mark nexthop as dead when it's subnet becomes
 unreachable


	Hello,

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Sergey Popovich wrote:

> +			if (nexthop_nh->nh_dev != dev ||
> +			    nexthop_nh->nh_scope == scope ||
> +			    (ifa && !inet_ifa_match(nexthop_nh->nh_gw, ifa)))

	What if nh_gw is part from another smaller/larger subnet?
For example, what if we still have 10.0.0.200/8 ? 10.0.10.5 is
still reachable, i.e. fib_check_nh() would create such NH.
IMHO, marking NH by exact nh_gw looks more acceptable because
the exact GW becomes unreachable. Otherwise, you will need
fib_lookup() as in fib_check_nh() to check that NH becomes
unreachable.

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