netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 13/19] ipv6: Flush all sibling routes upon NETDEV

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:   Tue, 2 Jan 2018 10:42:51 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, roopa@...ulusnetworks.com,
        nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com, mlxsw@...lanox.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 13/19] ipv6: Flush all sibling routes upon
 NETDEV_UNREGISTER

On 12/31/17 9:15 AM, Ido Schimmel wrote:
> IPv4 and IPv6 react differently to a netdev being unregistered. In IPv4,
> in case the netdev is used as a nexthop device in a multipath route, the
> entire route is flushed.
> 
> However, IPv6 only removes the nexthops associated with the unregistered
> netdev.
> 
> Align IPv4 and IPv6 and flush all the sibling routes when a nexthop
> device is unregistered.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
> ---
>  net/ipv6/route.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

not so sure about this one.

When we get to nexthops as separate objects, we can bring in consistency
by allowing ipv4 routes to just drop a single nexthop in the route
versus the behavior today.