netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] ipv6: fix blackhole routes

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: <Z61ZXLdD4VQZFcBa@mini-arch>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 18:30:52 -0800
From: Stanislav Fomichev <stfomichev@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
	Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Paul Ripke <stix@...gle.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] ipv6: fix blackhole routes

On 02/12, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 7:00 PM David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/12/25 9:43 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
> > > index 78362822b9070df138a0724dc76003b63026f9e2..335cdbfe621e2fc4a71badf4ff834870638d5e13 100644
> > > --- a/net/ipv6/route.c
> > > +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
> > > @@ -1048,7 +1048,7 @@ static const int fib6_prop[RTN_MAX + 1] = {
> > >       [RTN_BROADCAST] = 0,
> > >       [RTN_ANYCAST]   = 0,
> > >       [RTN_MULTICAST] = 0,
> > > -     [RTN_BLACKHOLE] = -EINVAL,
> > > +     [RTN_BLACKHOLE] = 0,
> > >       [RTN_UNREACHABLE] = -EHOSTUNREACH,
> > >       [RTN_PROHIBIT]  = -EACCES,
> > >       [RTN_THROW]     = -EAGAIN,
> >
> > EINVAL goes back to ef2c7d7b59708 in 2012, so this is a change in user
> > visible behavior. Also this will make ipv6 deviate from ipv4:
> >
> >         [RTN_BLACKHOLE] = {
> >                 .error  = -EINVAL,
> >                 .scope  = RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE,
> >         },
> 
> Should we create a new RTN_SINK (or different name), for both IPv4 and IPv6 ?

Sorry for sidelining, but depending on how this discussion goes,
tools/testing/selftests/net/fib_nexthops.sh test might need to be
adjusted (currently fails presumably because of -EINVAL change):

https://netdev-3.bots.linux.dev/vmksft-net/results/990081/2-fib-nexthops-sh/stdout

---
pw-bot: cr