netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v4] mpls: support for dead routes

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]

Message-ID: <56549483.3080600@brocade.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:46:59 +0000
From:	Robert Shearman <rshearma@...cade.com>
To:	roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
CC:	<ebiederm@...ssion.com>, <davem@...emloft.net>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4] mpls: support for dead routes

On 24/11/15 03:41, roopa wrote:
> On 11/23/15, 6:15 AM, Robert Shearman wrote:
>> On 21/11/15 05:16, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>>> +        if (!rt_new) {
>>> +            pr_warn("mpls_ifdown: kmemdup failed\n");
>>
>> It isn't safe to leave the current route untouched if the net device is being deleted, since a nexthop will be left holding a stale pointer to it. Perhaps delete the route entirely in that case?
> I would not delete the route. But, Would it be bad modifying rt in that case (ie when rt_new is not possible) ?. It is a remote case..and the side effect being the datapath will not see the changes atomically.

No, that sounds fine to me as long as RCU_INIT_POINTER is used.

Thanks,
Rob
--
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