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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 23:26:45 +0900 From: Hajime Tazaki <tazaki@....wide.ad.jp> To: kafai@...com Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, hannes@...essinduktion.org, steffen.klassert@...unet.com, davem@...emloft.net, yangyingliang@...wei.com, shengyong1@...wei.com, Kernel-team@...com Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/5] ipv6: Stop /128 route from disappearing after pmtu update At Sat, 2 May 2015 18:00:55 -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > > 09:00:04.401092 IP6 (hlim 255, next-header ICMPv6 (58) payload length: 16) fe80::200:ff:fe00:2 > ff02::2: [icmp6 sum ok] ICMP6, router solicitation, length 16 > > source link-address option (1), length 8 (1): 00:00:00:00:00:02 0x0000: 0000 0000 0002 > Was it captured at the sender side? > Did the receiver (2001:1::2) get the echo request? the capture was on the sender side. the receiver got the echo request: I will detail the next email but since two nodes connected back to back via point-to-point data link, the receiver side also has exactly the same pcap. > > (snip) > > - 'ip -6 a' at the ping6 sender > > 7: sim0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,NOARP,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qlen 1000 > > inet6 2001:1::1/64 scope global > > valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever > > inet6 fe80::200:ff:fe00:1/64 scope link > > valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever > > > > - 'ip -6 r show' at the ping6 sender > > 2001:1::/64 dev sim0 proto kernel metric 256 > > fe80::/64 dev sim0 proto kernel metric 256 > > > hmm...It is weird. It is a /64 route, so it should have > failed the (rt->dst.flags & DST_HOST) test anyway... > > > # the results of ip command on receiver side are almost > > similar. > > > > I found that the test uses non-ARP interface between nodes: > > if I changed the interface to 'non-NOARP' NIC, the issue has > > gone away without the revert. > > > > I'm using the following scenario: just FYI. > > > > https://gist.github.com/thehajime/26be8606ddbb924f357c > > > You meant without 'arp off'? Yes, I meant that. > Can you grep those IP from 'ip -6 neigh'? there is no output from 'ip -6 neigh' since the interfaces is configured with IFF_NOARP. > Can you try this patch just to confirm: I applied the updated patch and the ping successfully got replies. -- Hajime -- 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