netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] net: ipv6: Improve user experience with multipath routes

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: <ac4440d4-994f-bc21-3e8d-43bf1eefa95e@6wind.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:45:29 +0100
From:   Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, roopa <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/2] net: ipv6: Improve user experience with
 multipath routes

Le 27/01/2017 à 17:36, David Ahern a écrit :
> On 1/27/17 9:29 AM, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>> Le 26/01/2017 à 19:00, David Miller a écrit :
>>> From: David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
>> [snip]
>>>> Quagga does not properly handle IPv6 multipath routes received from
>>>> the kernel. I checked this with debian/jessie version and our
>>>> version, and Donald reviewed the source. It is broken.
>>>
>>> If this is true, quagga is asbolutely not an argument for this "breaking"
>>> something.  It doesn't break anything.
>> Ok, my tests also shows that quagga is buggy.
>> Let's change the way to advertise these routes.
>>
>> It would be great to also use RTA_MULTIPATH when a route is deleted (like in
>> your patch 1/2).
> 
> I have updated notifications to use RTA_MULTIPATH. Working on the multipath add/delete/replace permutations now and what the notification looks like. Add/replace is easy and the notifications use RTA_MULTIPATH. Notifications for the delete path are complicated given that a delete could remove only a subset of nexthops. Given that, we might have to settle for a notification for each nexthop delete.
Ok, I give it a quick look and I agree it seems not so easy.

> 
>>
>> Note that there is still a difference between ipv4 and ipv6: in ipv4 when a
>> nexthop is added/updated/removed, the whole route must be deleted and added
>> again. In IPv6, nexthop can be managed one by one.
>> It means that in ipv4, the full route is always dumped, which is not the case in
>> ipv6.
>>
> 
> Yes. I have been working on how to delete a nexthop within an IPv4 route. It is much more complicated given how the route is stored compared to IPv6.
> 
Ok.