netdev - Re: [RFC v4 3/5] vxlan: add support for underlay in non-default VRF

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, 26 Nov 2018 12:11:14 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>
To:     Alexis Bauvin <abauvin@...leway.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, akherbouche@...leway.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v4 3/5] vxlan: add support for underlay in non-default VRF

On 11/26/18 12:06 PM, Alexis Bauvin wrote:
> Moreover, the issue of mixing default and non-default vrf needs to be
> addressed. For now it is stale, as I don’t see any solution (except for
> rewriting the whole thing as you suggested before) to address the
> "Address already in use" made by a socket of the default vrf owning the
> port across all vrfs.
> I tested both Vyatta’s changes and SO_REUSEPORT, and neither of them seem
> to work for this case.

That suggests to me the reopen should be done internally so that the
socket failure can cause the enslavement to fail with a message passed
back to the user via extack.

ie., If changing the vrf association breaks vxlan, we should detect that
and fail the change.