netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 00/10] vrf: allow simultaneous service instances in default and other 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]

Message-ID: <4b9bf1c2-b157-f93c-7380-d5437d8eae7b@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Oct 2018 14:16:46 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Mike Manning <mmanning@...tta.att-mail.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 00/10] vrf: allow simultaneous service
 instances in default and other VRFs

On 10/1/18 2:43 AM, Mike Manning wrote:
> Services currently have to be VRF-aware if they are using an unbound
> socket. One cannot have multiple service instances running in the
> default and other VRFs for services that are not VRF-aware and listen
> on an unbound socket. This is because there is no way of isolating
> packets received in the default VRF from those arriving in other VRFs.
> 
> This series provides this isolation subject to the existing kernel
> parameter net.ipv4.tcp_l3mdev_accept not being set, given that this is
> documented as allowing a single service instance to work across all
> VRF domains. The functionality applies to UDP & TCP services, for IPv4
> and IPv6, in particular adding VRF table handling for IPv6 multicast.
> 

I see 1 failure caused by this patch set: IPv6/UDP send to a peer's
linklocal address with no server on port in the peer. An ICMP
unreachable is expected since there is no server and it is not received.
Happens with or without net.ipv4.udp_l3mdev_accept set.