netdev - Re: v6/sit tunnels and VRFs

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]

Date:   Sun, 29 Oct 2017 09:48:21 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Jeff Barnhill <0xeffeff@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: v6/sit tunnels and VRFs

On 10/27/17 8:43 PM, Jeff Barnhill wrote:
> ping v4 loopback...
> 
> jeff@VM2:~$ ip route list vrf myvrf
> 127.0.0.0/8 dev myvrf proto kernel scope link src 127.0.0.1
> 192.168.200.0/24 via 192.168.210.3 dev enp0s8
> 192.168.210.0/24 dev enp0s8 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.210.2
> 
> Lookups shown in perf script were for table 255.  Is it necessary to
> put the l3mdev table first?  If I re-order the tables, it starts
> working:

Yes, we advise moving the local table down to avoid false hits (e.g.,
duplicate addresses like this between the default VRF and another VRF).

I covered that and a few other things at OSS 2017. Latest VRF slides for
users:
  http://schd.ws/hosted_files/ossna2017/fe/vrf-tutorial-oss.pdf