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, 14 May 2019 12:33:25 -0700
From:   Wei Wang <>
To:     Stefano Brivio <>,
        David Ahern <>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <>
Cc:     Mikael Magnusson <>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <>
Subject: Re: IPv6 PMTU discovery fails with source-specific routing

I think the bug is because when creating exceptions, src_addr is not
always set even though fib6_info is in the subtree. (because of
rt6_is_gw_or_nonexthop() check)
However, when looking up for exceptions, we always set src_addr to the
passed in flow->src_addr if fib6_info is in the subtree. That causes
the exception lookup to fail.
I will make it consistent.
However, I don't quite understand the following logic in ip6_rt_cache_alloc():
        if (!rt6_is_gw_or_nonexthop(ort)) {
                if (ort->fib6_dst.plen != 128 &&
                    ipv6_addr_equal(&ort->fib6_dst.addr, daddr))
                        rt->rt6i_flags |= RTF_ANYCAST;
                if (rt->rt6i_src.plen && saddr) {
                        rt->rt6i_src.addr = *saddr;
                        rt->rt6i_src.plen = 128;
Why do we need to check that the route is not gateway and has next hop
for updating rt6i_src? I checked the git history and it seems this
part was there from very early on (with some refactor in between)...

From: Stefano Brivio <>
Date: Tue, May 14, 2019 at 7:33 AM
To: Mikael Magnusson
Cc: Wei Wang, David Ahern, Linux Kernel Network Developers, Martin KaFai Lau

> On Mon, 13 May 2019 23:12:31 -0700
> Wei Wang <> wrote:
> > Thanks Mikael for reporting this issue. And thanks David for the bisection.
> > Let me spend some time to reproduce it and see what is going on.
> Mikael, by the way, once this is sorted out, it would be nice if you
> could add your test as a case in tools/testing/selftests/net/ --
> you could probably reuse all the setup parts that are already
> implemented there.
> --
> Stefano

Powered by blists - more mailing lists