netdev - Re: iproute2 query

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: <CAH4CTx6d1tcmyaSgzA8Lw7MbAbH_cxb4EBM9BSV13ALPv_FVUA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Feb 2016 11:19:14 +1100
From:	Marcus Furlong <furlongm@...il.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: iproute2 query

On 22 February 2016 at 07:05, Stephen Hemminger
<stephen@...workplumber.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 20:12:04 +1100
> Marcus Furlong <furlongm@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just wondering if the following command should work:
>>
>> # ip route add 192.168.27.27/24 dev eth0 scope link src 192.168.27.27
>> RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
>>
>> However, this command works:
>>
>> # ip route add 192.168.27.0/24 dev eth0 scope link src 192.168.27.27
>>
>> 192.168.27.0/24 and 192.168.27.27/24 describe the same subnet?
>>
>
> It is the kernel complaining, not ip command.
> The kernel will not accept 192.168.27.27/24 as route since it is a full
> network address, not an network prefix.

Would it be a bad idea for the ip command to validate the data, and
only submit the network bits to the kernel?

Regards,
Marcus.

-- 
Marcus Furlong