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: <20170725000849.GD2938@leo.usersys.redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jul 2017 08:08:49 +0800
From:   Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: no need to return rt->dst.error if it is not
 null entry.

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:57:43PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> wrote:
> > Do we still need this net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry check? How about remove all
> > the checks?
> 
> I believe you only need to check for rt->dst.error, no need to check against
> NULL or ip6_null_entry.
> 
> Take a look at other ip6_route_lookup() callers.

Yes, I saw it. That why I send v2 patch to check both rt->dst.error and
ip6_null_entry.

The question is the other two caller are rpfilter_lookup_reverse6() and
nft_fib6_eval(). From the code it looks these two caller only care about
device match.

         if (rt->rt6i_idev->dev == dev || (flags & XT_RPFILTER_LOOSE))
                 ret = true;

And the device would be lo if it is ip6_null_entry. So they just discard it.
I'm not familiar with netfilter, Please correct me if I make any mistake.

But what we want in inet6_rtm_getroute() and rt6_dump_route() is to
get/dump the route info. So we should get the info even it's unreachable or
prohibit.

That's why I think we should remove both rt->dst.error and ip6_null_entry
check in inet6_rtm_getroute(). And even further, remove the ip6_null_entry
check in rt6_dump_route().

What do you think?

Thanks
Hangbin

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ