netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: ipv6: put host and anycast routes on device with address

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: <75e79efe-4a41-7b15-b7bb-8ed0624b72b5@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Aug 2017 18:05:56 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: ipv6: put host and anycast routes on
 device with address

On 8/18/17 5:15 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> Hello David,
> 
> David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> writes:
> 
>> @@ -2688,15 +2716,9 @@ struct rt6_info *addrconf_dst_alloc(struct inet6_dev *idev,
>>  {
>>  	u32 tb_id;
>>  	struct net *net = dev_net(idev->dev);
>> -	struct net_device *dev = net->loopback_dev;
>> +	struct net_device *dev = idev->dev;
>>  	struct rt6_info *rt;
>>  
>> -	/* use L3 Master device as loopback for host routes if device
>> -	 * is enslaved and address is not link local or multicast
>> -	 */
>> -	if (!rt6_need_strict(addr))
>> -		dev = l3mdev_master_dev_rcu(idev->dev) ? : dev;
>> -
>>  	rt = ip6_dst_alloc(net, dev, DST_NOCOUNT);
>>  	if (!rt)
>>  		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> 
> I am afraid this change might break Java:
> 
> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/file/65464a307408/src/java.base/unix/native/libnet/net_util_md.c#l574>
> 
> I am all in for this change, but maybe it might be necessary to mask
> RTF_LOCAL routes with "lo" somehow.

That's asinine. The if_inet6 processing is just getting the 'lo'
interface index. Why scan the file looking for that? The ipv6_route
processing is assembling routes against the loopback device regardless
of what the route is. Do you know why - what the route list is used for?

If it matters, we could keep 'lo' as the device for RTF_LOCAL routes in
the proc files to keep backwards compatibility.