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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 14 Apr 2018 18:07:50 -0400
From:   Jeff Barnhill <0xeffeff@...il.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: v6/sit tunnels and VRFs

I didn't see an easy way to achieve this behavior without affecting
the non-VRF routing lookups (such as deleting non-VRF rules).  We have
some automated tests that were looking for specific responses, but, of
course, those can be changed.  Among a few of my colleagues, this
became a discussion about maintaining consistent behavior between VRF
and non-VRF, such that a ping or some other tool wouldn't respond
differently.  That's the main reason I asked the question here - to
see how important this was in general use. It sounds like in your
experience, the specific error message/code hasn't been an issue.

Thanks,
Jeff

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 4:31 PM, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> wrote:
> On 4/13/18 2:23 PM, Jeff Barnhill wrote:
>> It seems that the ENETUNREACH response is still desirable in the VRF
>> case since the only difference (when using VRF vs. not) is that the
>> lookup should be restrained to a specific VRF.
>
> VRF is just policy routing to a table. If the table wants the lookup to
> stop, then it needs a default route. What you are referring to is the
> lookup goes through all tables and does not find an answer so it fails
> with -ENETUNREACH. I do not know of any way to make that happen with the
> existing default route options and in the past 2+ years we have not hit
> any s/w that discriminates -ENETUNREACH from -EHOSTUNREACH.
>
> I take it this is code from your internal code base. Why does it care
> between those two failures?