netdev - Re: iproute2: Behavioural Bug?

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:	Tue, 25 Aug 2015 14:00:27 -0700
From:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
To:	Akshat Kakkar <akshat.1984@...il.com>
Cc:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Subject: Re: iproute2: Behavioural Bug?

(Cc'ing Jamal)

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Akshat Kakkar <akshat.1984@...il.com> wrote:
> Well if that is the case, then just an additional information (which I
> have initially mentioned though), if hashtable is 800, then behaviour
> is correct i.e. deleting only a single filter but for hash tables
> other than 800, the bug (if any) gets triggered.
>

Hmm, I didn't read your initial email before my previous reply.

But I bet you deleted the 800: filter _after_ deleting the 15: one?
u32 hashtables are stateful, try the reverse order, I don't see
any reason why 800: could be any special here, expect it is the
default handle picked by kernel.

The attached patch works for me, let me know if it works for you..

View attachment "u32.diff" of type "text/plain" (621 bytes)