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, 13 May 2019 17:13:36 +0200
From:   Nicolas Dichtel <>
To:     Sabrina Dubroca <>
Cc:, Dan Winship <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] rtnetlink: always put ILFA_LINK for links with a

Le 13/05/2019 à 17:08, Sabrina Dubroca a écrit :
> 2019-05-13, 16:50:51 +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
>> Le 13/05/2019 à 15:47, Sabrina Dubroca a écrit :
>>> Currently, nla_put_iflink() doesn't put the IFLA_LINK attribute when
>>> iflink == ifindex.
>>> In some cases, a device can be created in a different netns with the
>>> same ifindex as its parent. That device will not dump its IFLA_LINK
>>> attribute, which can confuse some userspace software that expects it.
>>> For example, if the last ifindex created in init_net and foo are both
>>> 8, these commands will trigger the issue:
>>>     ip link add parent type dummy                   # ifindex 9
>>>     ip link add link parent netns foo type macvlan  # ifindex 9 in ns foo
>>> So, in case a device puts the IFLA_LINK_NETNSID attribute in a dump,
>>> always put the IFLA_LINK attribute as well.
>>> Thanks to Dan Winship for analyzing the original OpenShift bug down to
>>> the missing netlink attribute.
>>> Analyzed-by: Dan Winship <>
>>> Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
>> I would say:
>> Fixes: 5e6700b3bf98 ("sit: add support of x-netns")
>> Because before this patch, there was no device with an iflink that can be put in
>> another netns.
> That tells us how far back we might want to backport this fix, but not
> which commit introduced the bug. I think Fixes should refer to the
> introduction of the faulty code, not to what patch made it visible (if
> we can find both).
No sure to follow you. The problem you describe cannot happen before commit
5e6700b3bf98, so there cannot be a "faulty" patch before that commit.
Anyway, both commits are very old, so it doesn't matter.

Thank you,

Powered by blists - more mailing lists