netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: Add sysctl for RA default route table number

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:   Tue, 29 Jun 2021 17:05:03 +0300
From:   Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>
To:     antony.antony@...unet.com
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Christian Perle <christian.perle@...unet.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: Add sysctl for RA default route table
 number

Hi Antony,

On 29/06/2021 15:53, Antony Antony wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 22:47:41 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 6/25/21 1:04 AM, Antony Antony wrote:
>>> From: Christian Perle <christian.perle@...unet.com>
>>>
>>> Default routes learned from router advertisements(RA) are always placed
>>> in main routing table. For policy based routing setups one may
>>> want a different table for default routes. This commit adds a sysctl
>>> to make table number for RA default routes configurable.
>>>
>>> examples:
>>> sysctl net.ipv6.route.defrtr_table
>>> sysctl -w net.ipv6.route.defrtr_table=42
>>> ip -6 route show table 42
>>
>> How are the routing tables managed? If the netdevs are connected to a
>> VRF this just works.
> 
> The main routing table has no default route. Our scripts add routing rules
> based on interfaces. These rules use the specific routing table where the RA
> (when using SLAAC) installs the default route. The rest just works.

Could this be a devconf property instead of a global property? seems 
like the difference would be minor to your patch but the benefit is that 
setups using different routing tables for different policies could 
benefit (as mentioned when not using vrfs).

Eyal.