netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2] Revert "iproute: "list/flush/save default" selected all of the routes"

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: <998171522172008@web36j.yandex.ru>
Date:   Tue, 27 Mar 2018 19:33:28 +0200
From:   Alexander Zubkov <green@....ru>
To:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Cc:     Serhey Popovych <serhe.popovych@...il.com>,
        Luca Boccassi <bluca@...ian.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] Revert "iproute: "list/flush/save default" selected all of the routes"

master before merging revert + my recent patch (1) should work. Or you mean to prepare patch to change new master to desired state? I can do it.

1) https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/network/iproute2/iproute2.git/patch/?id=7696f1097f79be2ce5984a8a16103fd17391cac2

27.03.2018, 19:00, "Stephen Hemminger" <stephen@...workplumber.org>:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:29:31 +0200
> Alexander Zubkov <green@....ru> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Stephen,
>>
>>  Looks like the new patch was applied after the revert of original patch and fix patch for 4.15 branch. Which is not correct and I did not test it. This is how patches were designed:
>>  1) your revert patch - rolls back 4.15 branch to old behaviour by reverting the original patch
>>  2) my patch for 4.15 - fixes problem is 4.15 branch, it does not require revert patch, it is an alternative solution for the problem, it is designed solely for version 4.15
>>  3) my patch for master - fixes problem, it requires neither revert patch nor my patch for 4.15, it is standalone patch designed to do things right in master branch
>>
>>  27.03.2018, 18:01, "Stephen Hemminger" <stephen@...workplumber.org>:
>>  > On Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:26:40 +0100
>>  > Alexander Zubkov <green@....ru> wrote:
>>  >
>>  >>  Hello,
>>  >>
>>  >>  For example, it can be fixed in such way (patch is below):
>>  >>  - split handling of default and all/any
>>  >>  - set needed attributes in get_addr: PREFIXLEN_SPECIFIED flag for default
>>  >>  - and AF_UNSPEC for all/any
>>  >>  In this case "ip route show default" shows only default route and "ip
>>  >>  route show all" shows all routes. And both also work when family (-4 or
>>  >>  -6) is specified.
>>  >>  Serhey, does it goes in line with what you wanted to achieve? Because I
>>  >>  do not know - may be there are reasons why all/any should be provided
>>  >>  with specific family. If you think this solution is suitable, I'll do
>>  >>  some additional tests and package the patch in a proper way for this
>>  >>  mailing list.
>>  >>  And I'm unsure if check for AF_DECnet and AF_MPLS should be kept in both
>>  >>  branches. May be someone have some additional thoughts on that?
>>  >
>>  > I applied this to master.
>>  >
>>  > We can work on the other cases after that.
>
> Please send the update back to what works.