netdev - Re: [iproute PATCH] man: tc-csum.8: Fix example

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: <20170128111648.GX5197@orbyte.nwl.cc>
Date:   Sat, 28 Jan 2017 12:16:48 +0100
From:   Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>
To:     Guillaume Nault <g.nault@...halink.fr>
Cc:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [iproute PATCH] man: tc-csum.8: Fix example

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 09:49:58PM +0100, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:15:01PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > +# tc filter add dev eth0 prio 1 protocol ip parent ffff: \\
> >  	u32 match ip src 192.168.1.100/32 flowid :1 \\
> > -	action pedit munge ip dst set 0x12345678 pipe \\
> > +	action pedit munge ip dst set 1.2.3.4 pipe \\
> > 
> Just nitpicking here, but IMHO examples like this should better use IP
> addresses reserved for documentation (192.0.2.0/24, 198.51.100.0/24 or
> 203.0.113.0/24).

Good point! This wasn't on my radar yet and I didn't know there were
IPv4 ranges specifically for that purpose. I guess the reasoning here is
analogous to why one shouldn't use 'example.com' everywhere.

Luckily, 1.2.3.0/24 seems to be reserved by APNIC for testing purposes.
:)

I'll respin using another example address.

Thanks, Phil