netdev - Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: no need to return rt->dst.error if it is not null entry.

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: <CAM_iQpXvyZR6EZ8s_P6JcKZhHN9t5N+2s4cTqHy0RLdGEMeg0A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:49:05 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...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 5:08 PM, Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com> wrote:
> 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.

If you want to dump prohibit/blackhole entry, then you have to check
for null_entry, and rt->dst.error check is still needed because we
could return error on other normal entries too, IOW, your v2 is correct
if dumping prohibit/blackhole is expected.

I thought we don't dump them. I am not sure about the behavior either.