netdev - Re: [Possible regression?] ip route deletion behavior 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <458df7c4-7be0-cc2e-cc9b-828fac22a841@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 6 Nov 2019 08:59:47 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Hendrik Donner <hd@...cillation.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Mark Tomlinson <mark.tomlinson@...iedtelesis.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [Possible regression?] ip route deletion behavior change

On 11/6/19 8:56 AM, Hendrik Donner wrote:
>> devices not associated with a VRF table are implicitly tied to the
>> default == main table.
>>
>> Can you test this change:
>>
>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c b/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c
>> index 0913a090b2bf..f1888c683426 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c
>> @@ -1814,8 +1814,8 @@ int fib_sync_down_addr(struct net_device *dev,
>> __be32 local)
>>         int ret = 0;
>>         unsigned int hash = fib_laddr_hashfn(local);
>>         struct hlist_head *head = &fib_info_laddrhash[hash];
>> +       int tb_id = l3mdev_fib_table(dev) ? : RT_TABLE_MAIN;
>>         struct net *net = dev_net(dev);
>> -       int tb_id = l3mdev_fib_table(dev);
>>         struct fib_info *fi;
>>
>>         if (!fib_info_laddrhash || local == 0)
>>
>> [ As DaveM noted, you should cc maintainers and author(s) of suspected
>> regression patches ]
>>
> 
> I've tested your patch and it restores the expected behavior.

ok, I will send a formal patch.

> 
> + Mark Tomlinson so he can have a look at it too.
> 
> And my mail server can't deliver to Shrijeet Mukherjee <shm@...ulusnetworks.com>.
> Is that email address correct?
> 

Maintainers file in top of tree has the correct address:

$ grep Shrijeet MAINTAINERS
M:	Shrijeet Mukherjee <shrijeet@...il.com>