netdev - Re: [PATCH net] ipv4: fix route update on metric change.

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:   Fri, 25 Oct 2019 08:33:42 -0600
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Beniamino Galvani <bgalvani@...hat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv4: fix route update on metric change.

On 10/25/19 4:24 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-10-24 at 09:50 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 10/24/19 3:19 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>>> Since commit af4d768ad28c ("net/ipv4: Add support for specifying metric
>>> of connected routes"), when updating an IP address with a different metric,
>>> the associated connected route is updated, too.
>>>
>>> Still, the mentioned commit doesn't handle properly some corner cases:
>>>
>>> $ ip addr add dev eth0 192.168.1.0/24
>>> $ ip addr add dev eth0 192.168.2.1/32 peer 192.168.2.2
>>> $ ip addr add dev eth0 192.168.3.1/24
>>> $ ip addr change dev eth0 192.168.1.0/24 metric 10
>>> $ ip addr change dev eth0 192.168.2.1/32 peer 192.168.2.2 metric 10
>>> $ ip addr change dev eth0 192.168.3.1/24 metric 10
>>> $ ip -4 route
>>> 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.0
>>> 192.168.2.2 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.1
>>> 192.168.3.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.1 metric 10
>>
>> Please add this test and route checking to
>> tools/testing/selftests/net/fib_tests.sh. There is a
>> ipv4_addr_metric_test function that handles permutations and I guess the
>> above was missed.
> 
> Do you prefer a net-next patch for that, or a repost on -net with a
> separate patch for the self-test appended?

As I recall I added the test cases when I added the feature. IMHO, it
would be best to add the new tests with the bug fix.

> 
>> Also, does a similar sequence for IPv6 work as expected?
> 
> Just tested, it works without issue, It looks like IPv6 has not special
> handing connected route with peers/128 bit masks.
> 

thanks for checking.