netdev - Re: IPv6 addr and route is gone after adding port to vrf (5.2.0+)

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]

Date:   Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:35:23 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6 addr and route is gone after adding port to vrf (5.2.0+)

On 10/11/19 7:57 AM, Ben Greear wrote:
>> The down-up cycling is done on purpose - to clear out neigh entries and
>> routes associated with the device under the old VRF. All entries must be
>> created with the device in the new VRF.
> 
> I believe I found another thing to be aware of relating to this.
> 
> My logic has been to do supplicant, then do DHCP, and only when DHCP
> responds do I set up the networking for the wifi station.
> 
> It is at this time that I would be creating a VRF (or using routing rules
> if not using VRF).
> 
> But, when I add the station to the newly created vrf, then it bounces it,
> and that causes supplicant to have to re-associate  (I think, lots of
> moving
> pieces, so I could be missing something).
> 
> Any chance you could just clear the neighbor entries and routes w/out
> bouncing
> the interface?

yes, it is annoying. I have been meaning to fix that, but never found
the motivation to do it. If you have the time, it would be worth
avoiding the overhead.