| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 18:08:47 -0700 From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> To: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Strange routing with VRF and 5.2.7+ On 9/10/19 3:17 PM, Ben Greear wrote: > Today we were testing creating 200 virtual station vdevs on ath9k, and using > VRF for the routing. Looks like the same issue happens w/out VRF, but there I have oodles of routing rules, so it is an area ripe for failure. Will upgrade to 5.2.14+ and retest, and try 4.20 as well.... Thanks, Ben > > This really slows down the machine in question. > > During the minutes that it takes to bring these up and configure them, > we loose network connectivity on the management port. > > If I do 'ip route show', it just shows the default route out of eth0, and > the subnet route. But, if I try to ping the gateway, I get an ICMP error > coming back from the gateway of one of the virtual stations (which should be > safely using VRFs and so not in use when I do a plain 'ping' from the shell). > > I tried running tshark on eth0 in the background and running ping, and it captures > no packets leaving eth0. > > After some time (and during this time, my various scripts will be (re)configuring > vrfs and stations and related vrf routing tables and such, > but should *not* be messing with the main routing table, then suddenly > things start working again. > > I am curious if anyone has seen anything similar or has suggestions for more > ways to debug this. It seems reproducible, but it is a pain to > debug. > > Thanks, > Ben > -- Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists