netdev - RE: VRF Issue Since kernel 5

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: <CWLP265MB1554C88316ACF2BDD4692ECAFDB10@CWLP265MB1554.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 05:09:27 +0000
From:   Gowen <gowen@...atocomputing.co.uk>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Alexis Bauvin <abauvin@...ine.net>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: VRF Issue Since kernel 5

Thanks for the link - that's really useful. I did re-order ip rules Friday (I think) - no change

-----Original Message-----
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> 
Sent: 10 September 2019 17:36
To: Alexis Bauvin <abauvin@...ine.net>; Gowen <gowen@...atocomputing.co.uk>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: VRF Issue Since kernel 5

On 9/9/19 1:01 PM, Alexis Bauvin wrote:
> Could you try swapping the local and l3mdev rules?
> 
> `ip rule del pref 0; ip rule add from all lookup local pref 1001`

yes, the rules should be re-ordered so that local rule is after l3mdev rule (VRF is implemented as policy routing). In general, I would reverse the order of those commands to ensure no breakage.

Also, 5.0 I think it was (too many kernel versions) added a new l3mdev sysctl (raw_l3mdev_accept). Check all 3 of them and nmake sure they are set properly for your use case.

These slides do not cover 5.0 changes but are still the best collection of notes on VRF:
http://schd.ws/hosted_files/ossna2017/fe/vrf-tutorial-oss.pdf