netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: change fib behavior based on interface link status

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: <1433363776.726957.286148073.0C5909FA@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date:	Wed, 03 Jun 2015 22:36:16 +0200
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Andy Gospodarek <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:	Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...il.com>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, ddutt@...ulusnetworks.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: change fib behavior based on interface link
 status

On Wed, Jun 3, 2015, at 22:34, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:04:06PM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015, at 20:27, Andy Gospodarek wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 11:15:55AM -0700, Scott Feldman wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Andy Gospodarek
> > > > <gospo@...ulusnetworks.com> wrote:
> > > > > This feature is only enabled with the new sysctl set (default is off):
> > > > > net.core.kill_routes_on_linkdown = 1
> > > > 
> > > > One more thing, sorry.  This feature is typically implemented today in
> > > > user-space on a per-interface basis.  The example I'm thinking of is
> > > > Quagga's "link-detect" directive which goes on an interface.  Should
> > > > this be a bool on each interface in systcl?  That would let user not
> > > > enable on selected interfaces.
> > > That would not be my preference.
> > > 
> > > I'm willing to investigate the per-namespace support if Hannes would
> > > like and add switchdev support for v2, but would prefer this not become
> > > that granular.
> > 
> > Actually, this idea also came to my mind: flagging specific routes if
> > they are eligible to suppress if the link is down.
> I'll have to think about how this would integrate with the alternative
> design suggestion earlier in the thread from Alex.
> 
> Even if I do not implement this right away it might be nice to add the
> ability to mark routes as permanent if the user desired.

If you do a per-route flag you would need a newer iproute binary in any
case, so you could apply Alex feedback more easily. :}

Bye,
Hannes

--
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