netdev - Re: question on ipv6 support for duplicate nexthops

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]

Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 2014 09:15:27 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Daniel Walton <dwalton@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: question on ipv6 support for duplicate nexthops

On Mi, 2014-06-25 at 14:40 -0700, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
> ipv4 allows duplicate nexthops. Multiple instances of same
>   nexthops maybe used to give higher weights to some nexthops
> (though the "weight" attribute can be used for the same purpose).
> 
> ipv6 does not seem to support duplicate nexthops.
> 
> Example: The below ipv6 route is rejected by the kernel
> #ip -6 route add 2001:10:1:3::/64 nexthop via 2001:10:1:2::99 nexthop 
> via 2001:10:1:2::99
> 
> The below patch points to the code that is preventing the addition of 
> duplicate nexthops.
> 
> I am not sure yet if there are other side effects to the patch below.
> If there is interest in making ipv6 consistent with ipv4 for duplicate 
> nexthop handling, i can submit a patch.

ECMP routes are normal routing entries in the fib, just hold together
via an internal list and thus behave differently than IPv4 ECMP routes.

I don't see that just removing the check for duplicate entries will make
that work correctly.

Also you remove some pretty important expire update code.

Bye,
Hannes

> diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c b/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c
> index cb4459b..afecc87 100644
> --- a/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c
> +++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c
> @@ -698,20 +698,6 @@ static int fib6_add_rt2node(struct fib6_node *fn, 
> struct rt6_info *rt,
>                                  break;
>                          }
> 
> -                       if (iter->dst.dev == rt->dst.dev &&
> -                           iter->rt6i_idev == rt->rt6i_idev &&
> - ipv6_addr_equal(&iter->rt6i_gateway,
> - &rt->rt6i_gateway)) {
> -                               if (rt->rt6i_nsiblings)
> -                                       rt->rt6i_nsiblings = 0;
> -                               if (!(iter->rt6i_flags & RTF_EXPIRES))
> -                                       return -EEXIST;
> -                               if (!(rt->rt6i_flags & RTF_EXPIRES))
> -                                       rt6_clean_expires(iter);
> -                               else
> -                                       rt6_set_expires(iter, 
> rt->dst.expires);
> -                               return -EEXIST;
> -                       }
>                          /* If we have the same destination and the same 
> metric,
>                           * but not the same gateway, then the route we 
> try to
>                           * add is sibling to this route, increment our 
> counter
> 
> --
> 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



--
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