netdev - Re: Q: bad routing table cache entries

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]

Date:	Tue, 29 Dec 2015 06:58:21 -0500
From:	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
To:	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Q: bad routing table cache entries

On (12/29/15 13:54), Stas Sergeev wrote:
> 
> ip route get 91.189.89.238
> 91.189.89.238 via 192.168.0.1 dev eth0  src 192.168.10.202
>     cache <redirected>
         :
> Now, 192.168.0.1 is also a valid gateway, but it is outside
> of the network mask for the eth0 interface:
         :
> So my question is: why does linux allow an invalid redirect
> entries? Is it a problem with my setup, or some kernel bug,
> or some router setup problem? Where should I look into, to
> nail this down?

Seems like the problem is in the router that is sending
the bad redirect. You would have to check into the configuration
and/or implementation of the router- it should not be sending
back a redirect in the above case (different netmasks) even
if the ingress and egress physical interfaces are the same.

--Sowmini

--
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