netdev - Re: rt_uses_gateway was removed?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 15 Sep 2019 18:05:03 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Julian Anastasov <ja@....bg>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: rt_uses_gateway was removed?

On 9/15/19 3:08 AM, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> 	Now I see commit 1550c171935d wrongly changes that to
> "If rt_gw_family is set it implies rt_uses_gateway.".
> As result, we set rt_gw_family while rt_uses_gateway was 0
> for above cases. Think about it in this way: there should be
> a reason why we used rt_uses_gateway flag instead a simple
> "rt_gateway != 0" check, right?
> 
> 	Replacing rt->rt_gateway checks with rt_gw_family
> checks is right but rt_uses_gateway checks should be put
> back because they indicates the route has more hops to
> target.
> 
> 	As the problem is related to some FNHW and non-cached
> routes, redirects, etc the easiest way to see the problem is with
> 'ip route get LOCAL_IP oif eth0' where extra 'via GW' line is
> shown.

Hi Julian:

Thanks for the detailed report. Yes, I misunderstood the subtle point of
rt_uses_gateway. I will look at a fix this week.

David