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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56827759.8020605@list.ru>
Date:	Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:06:49 +0300
From:	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>
To:	Sowmini Varadhan <sowmini.varadhan@...cle.com>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Q: bad routing table cache entries

29.12.2015 14:58, Sowmini Varadhan пишет:
> 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.
Router on 192.168.8.1 is just a PC with ubuntu, w/o any special
software. I'd be very surprised if it does so. As I understand,
linux would accept such ICMP redirect only from the router, or
could someone else also send them?

But what worries me more, is the question:
Should the linux kernel really silently accept those, breaking
the routing in a completely unexpected ways? Isn't it a bug?
The sanity check against netmask looks trivial, so why it is not there?
--
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