netdev - Unexpected behaviour of suppress

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <64ccbd98-7717-8ca8-06c8-946a9370f4af@uni-muenster.de>
Date:   Fri, 21 Oct 2016 00:00:53 +0200
From:   Matthias Peter Walther <m_walt11@...-muenster.de>
To:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Unexpected behaviour of suppress_prefixlength 0

Hello,

I'm Matthias and I'm new to this list. I just signed up, to ask the 
following question.

I have a configuration like this:

root@...1 ~ # ip rule
0:    from all lookup local
32765:    from all iif lo lookup ffnet suppress_prefixlength 0
32766:    from all lookup main
32767:    from all lookup default
(ffnet is table 42)
root@...1 ~ # ip r s
default via 5.9.86.151 dev eth0
5.9.86.151 dev eth0  proto kernel  scope link  src 5.9.86.144
root@...1 ~ # ip r s t 42
blackhole default

I have the default routing table, and a routing table number 42. I could 
use an ip rule filtering by destination ip, but I wanted to try 
suppress_prefixlength.

Let's say I want to ping 8.8.8.8. What I expect is, that the package is 
put into routing table 42 by the ip rule 32765. As there is no more 
specific route for 8.8.8.8 than the default route in table 42, I expect 
the suppress_prefixlength 0 option to put it back to the default routing 
table and then to be send out through eth0.

Instead this configuration takes the whole machine offline:

root@...1 ~ # ping 8.8.8.8
connect: Invalid argument

When I delete the ip rule 32765 containing the suppress_prefixlength, 
the machine is back online.

Do I not understand the suppress_prefixlength-feature correctly or is 
this a bug? I tested with Kernel 4.7 and 4.6, both show the same 
behaviour as described above.

Thanks for any replies in advance.

Regards,
Matthias