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]

Message-ID: <56951D1D.5080602@stressinduktion.org>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jan 2016 16:34:53 +0100
From:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To:	Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Q: bad routing table cache entries

On 29.12.2015 11:54, Stas Sergeev wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I was hitting a strange problem when some internet hosts
> suddenly stops responding until I reboot. ping to these
> host gives "Destination Host Unreachable". After the
> initial confusion, I've finally got to
> ip route get
> and got something quite strange.
>
>
> Example for GOOD address (the one that I can ping):
>
> ip route get 91.189.89.237
> 91.189.89.237 via 192.168.8.1 dev eth0  src 192.168.10.202
>      cache
>
>
> Example for BAD address (the one that stopped responding):
>
> 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>

I tried to understand this thread and now wonder why this redirect route 
isn't there always. Can you please summarize again why this shouldn't 
happen? It looks totally fine to me from the configuration of your 
router and the subnet masks.

Bye,
Hannes