netdev - Re: [PATCH iproute2] ip route: get: only set RTM_F_LOOKUP

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: <20190121073246.GA4717@splinter>
Date:   Mon, 21 Jan 2019 09:32:46 +0200
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, oss-drivers@...ronome.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH iproute2] ip route: get: only set RTM_F_LOOKUP_TABLE flag
 for IPv4

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 09:29:51AM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
> On 1/14/19 9:05 AM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Jan 2019 12:54:06 -0800
> > Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Kernel ignores the RTM_F_LOOKUP_TABLE flag for all families
> >> but IPv4.  Don't set it, otherwise it may fall foul of
> >> strict checking policies.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
> > 
> > Doing the right thing is a good idea, but really I can't see
> > the point of doing this. The kernel will always have to accept
> > requests from older versions of iproute2 (it can never be stricter)
> > because of ABI compatibility. So unless you can make a stronger
> > case for this; no not applying it.
> > 
> 
> iproute2 is often used as a reference model for features. Making
> iproute2 correct is the right thing to do regardless of whether what the
> kernel accepts.
> 
> Current master branch is the first iproute2 to use the strict checking,
> and its first release with strict checking should have as many of these
> little one offs as possible fixed.

With current iproute2-next and net-next I get:

$ ip -6 route get 2001:db8:1::2
Error: ipv6: Invalid flags for get route request.

Are we going to patch the kernel to accept a flag it is not using or are
we going to patch iproute2 to not send it?