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:   Tue, 16 Apr 2019 22:56:01 -0600
From:   David Ahern <>
To:     linmiaohe <>,,,,
Cc:     Mingfangsen <>
Subject: Re: some trouble when using vrf

On 4/16/19 8:22 PM, linmiaohe wrote:
> On 2019/4/16 23:20, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 4/16/19 5:26 AM, linmiaohe wrote:
>>>     ...
>>>     bind(sock_fd, (struct sockaddr *)&addr_serv, sizeof(addr_serv));
>>>     ...
>>>     ret = setsockopt(sock_fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_BINDTODEVICE, bind_dev, strlen(bind_dev)+1);
>>>     ...
>>>     This code snipet doesn't work if the ip address of addr_serv is not in default vrf. And
>>> "Cannot assign requested address" will occurs.
>> Applications must bind to the device first and then bind to the local
>> address. As I recall this applies regardless of whether it is a VRF or
>> other.
> It should be, but unfortunately some applications break this.

Sure, I have an open item on my to-do list about re-verifying bound
addresses when the device binding changes (and vice versa). This is not
a problem VRF introduced, but VRF use case does bring more attention to it.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists