netdev - Re: iproute2: make ip route list to search by metric too

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:   Mon, 4 Dec 2017 20:39:08 +0100
From:   Alexander Zubkov <zubkov318@...il.com>
To:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: iproute2: make ip route list to search by metric too

Hello everybody,

Excuse me for probably being impatient. But may I have some feedback
on my proposal?

On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Alexander Zubkov <zubkov318@...il.com> wrote:
> I think this version will be better. It uses metric mask (like for
> some other options) instead of simple yes/no flag.
>
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Alexander Zubkov <zubkov318@...il.com> wrote:
>> Hello again,
>>
>> Things turned out to be not so hard. Please take a look at the attached patch.
>> I'm only not sure if RTA_PRIORITY is enough. Because the print_route
>> function prints "metric" also for some situations with RTA_METRICS,
>> which I haven't managed to understand.
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 1:40 AM, Alexander Zubkov <zubkov318@...il.com> wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> Currently routes in the Linux routing table have these "key" fields:
>>> prefix, tos, table, metric (as I know). I.e. we cannot have two
>>> different routes with the same set of this fields. And "ip route list"
>>> command can be provided with all but one of those fields. We cannot
>>> pass metric to it and this is inconvenient. I ask if this behaviour
>>> can be changed by someone. We can even use "secondary" fields, for
>>> example type, dev or via, but not metric unfortunately.
>>> Sorry, I can not provide patches. I have written code long time ago. I
>>> tried to trace it, but as I see it parses arguments and fills some
>>> structures. And then my tries to understand failed.
>>> I opened the bug: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=197897,
>>> but I was pointed out that this mailing list is a better place for
>>> this question.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alexander Zubkov