After commit 18c3a61c4264 ("net: ipv6: RTM_GETROUTE: return matched fib
result when requested"). When we get a prohibit ertry, we will return
-EACCES directly.
Before:
+ ip netns exec client ip -6 route get 2003::1
prohibit 2003::1 dev lo table unspec proto kernel src 2001::1 metric
4294967295 err
Hi Roopa, Cong,
2017-07-20 22:51 GMT+08:00 Hangbin Liu :
> After commit 18c3a61c4264 ("net: ipv6: RTM_GETROUTE: return matched fib
> result when requested"). When we get a prohibit ertry, we will return
> -EACCES directly.
>
> Before:
> + ip netns exec client ip -6 route get 2003::1
> prohibit 200
2017-07-20 23:06 GMT+08:00 Hangbin Liu :
>> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
>> @@ -3637,12 +3637,6 @@ static int inet6_rtm_getroute(struct sk_buff *in_skb,
>> struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
>> dst = ip6_route_lookup(net, &fl6, 0);
>>
>> rt = container_of(dst, struct rt6_info, dst);
>> -
On 7/20/17 9:23 AM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
> index 4d30c96..c290aa4 100644
> --- a/net/ipv6/route.c
> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
> @@ -3637,13 +3637,8 @@ static int inet6_rtm_getroute(struct sk_buff
> *in_skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
> dst =
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> 2017-07-20 23:06 GMT+08:00 Hangbin Liu :
>>> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
>>> @@ -3637,12 +3637,6 @@ static int inet6_rtm_getroute(struct sk_buff
>>> *in_skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
>>> dst = ip6_route_lookup(net, &fl6, 0);
>>>
>>>
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
>> 2017-07-20 23:06 GMT+08:00 Hangbin Liu :
+++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
@@ -3637,12 +3637,6 @@ static int inet6_rtm_getroute(struct sk_buff
*in_skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
>>> 2017-07-20 23:06 GMT+08:00 Hangbin Liu :
> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
> @@ -3637,12 +3637,6 @@ static int inet6_rtm_getroute(st
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> After commit 18c3a61c4264 ("net: ipv6: RTM_GETROUTE: return matched fib
> result when requested"). When we get a prohibit ertry, we will return
> -EACCES directly.
>
> Before:
> + ip netns exec client ip -6 route get 2003::1
> prohibit 2003::1
Hi Roopa,
On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 09:55:51PM -0700, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:51 AM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > After commit 18c3a61c4264 ("net: ipv6: RTM_GETROUTE: return matched fib
> > result when requested"). When we get a prohibit ertry, we will return
> > -EACCES directly.
Hi Cong,
On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 11:42:46AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > 2017-07-20 23:06 GMT+08:00 Hangbin Liu :
> >>> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
> >>> @@ -3637,12 +3637,6 @@ static int inet6_rtm_getroute(struct sk_buff
> >>> *in_skb, struct nlmsg
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> Do we still need this net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry check? How about remove all
> the checks?
I believe you only need to check for rt->dst.error, no need to check against
NULL or ip6_null_entry.
Take a look at other ip6_route_lookup() callers.
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:57:43PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > Do we still need this net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry check? How about remove all
> > the checks?
>
> I believe you only need to check for rt->dst.error, no need to check against
> NULL o
On 7/24/17 6:08 PM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> That's why I think we should remove both rt->dst.error and ip6_null_entry
> check in inet6_rtm_getroute(). And even further, remove the ip6_null_entry
> check in rt6_dump_route().
git blame net/ipv6/route.c
find the commits and review.
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:28:07PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 7/24/17 6:08 PM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > That's why I think we should remove both rt->dst.error and ip6_null_entry
> > check in inet6_rtm_getroute(). And even further, remove the ip6_null_entry
> > check in rt6_dump_route().
>
> git
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> But what we want in inet6_rtm_getroute() and rt6_dump_route() is to
> get/dump the route info. So we should get the info even it's unreachable or
> prohibit.
If you want to dump prohibit/blackhole entry, then you have to check
for null_entry,
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:49:05AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > But what we want in inet6_rtm_getroute() and rt6_dump_route() is to
> > get/dump the route info. So we should get the info even it's unreachable or
> > prohibit.
>
> If you want to
On 7/25/17 1:32 AM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:28:07PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 7/24/17 6:08 PM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
>>> That's why I think we should remove both rt->dst.error and ip6_null_entry
>>> check in inet6_rtm_getroute(). And even further, remove the ip6_null_entr
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 7/25/17 1:32 AM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 09:28:07PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
>>> On 7/24/17 6:08 PM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
That's why I think we should remove both rt->dst.error and ip6_null_entry
check in inet
On 7/26/17 12:27 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
> agreed...so looks like the check in v3 should be
>
>
> + if ( rt == net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry ||
> +(rt->dst.error &&
> + #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_MULTIPLE_TABLES
> + rt != net->ipv6.ip6_prohibit_entry &&
> + rt != ne
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:49 AM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 7/26/17 12:27 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>> agreed...so looks like the check in v3 should be
>>
>>
>> + if ( rt == net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry ||
>> +(rt->dst.error &&
>> + #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_MULTIPLE_TABLES
>> + rt
On 7/26/17 12:55 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:49 AM, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 7/26/17 12:27 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>>> agreed...so looks like the check in v3 should be
>>>
>>>
>>> + if ( rt == net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry ||
>>> +(rt->dst.error &&
>>> + #ifde
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:00 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 7/26/17 12:55 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:49 AM, David Ahern wrote:
>>> On 7/26/17 12:27 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
agreed...so looks like the check in v3 should be
+ if ( rt == net->ipv6.ip
Hi David,
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 01:00:26PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> >> I don't think so. If I add a prohibit route and use the fibmatch
> >> attribute, I want to see the route from the FIB that was matched.
> >
> >
> > yes, exactly. wouldn't 'rt != net->ipv6.ip6_prohibit_entry' above let
>
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:49 AM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 7/26/17 12:27 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>> agreed...so looks like the check in v3 should be
>>
>>
>> + if ( rt == net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry ||
>> +(rt->dst.error &&
>> + #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_MULTIPLE_TABLES
>> + rt
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 09:56:08PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:49 AM, David Ahern wrote:
> > On 7/26/17 12:27 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
> >> agreed...so looks like the check in v3 should be
> >>
> >>
> >> + if ( rt == net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry ||
> >> +(rt->
On 7/27/17 10:56 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:49 AM, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 7/26/17 12:27 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>>> agreed...so looks like the check in v3 should be
>>>
>>>
>>> + if ( rt == net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry ||
>>> +(rt->dst.error &&
>>> + #ifdef C
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 8:10 AM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 7/27/17 10:56 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:49 AM, David Ahern wrote:
>>> On 7/26/17 12:27 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
agreed...so looks like the check in v3 should be
+ if ( rt == net->ipv6.ip6_nu
On 7/28/17 11:13 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
> for fibmatch, my original intent was to return with an error code.
> This is similar
> to the ipv4 behavior. One option is to keep the check in there and put
> the 'fibmatch'
> condition around it. But, i do want to make sure that for the fibmatch case,
>
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:39 AM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 7/28/17 11:13 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>> for fibmatch, my original intent was to return with an error code.
>> This is similar
>> to the ipv4 behavior. One option is to keep the check in there and put
>> the 'fibmatch'
>> condition around i
On 7/28/17 1:52 PM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:39 AM, David Ahern wrote:
>> IPv4 does not have the notion of null_entry or prohibit route entries
>> which makes IPv4 and IPv6 inconsistent - something we really need to be
>> avoiding from a user experience.
>>
>> We have the f
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:39 AM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 7/28/17 11:13 AM, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
>> for fibmatch, my original intent was to return with an error code.
>> This is similar
>> to the ipv4 behavior. One option is to keep the check in there and put
>> the 'fibmatch'
>> condition around i
On 7/31/17 12:37 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>
>> So Roopa's fibmatch patches brings consistency between IPv4 and IPv6 at
>> the cost of breaking backwards compatibility for IPv6 when the prohibit
>> or blackhole routes are hit.
>>
> There are already many differences between IPv4 and
> IPv6 behaviors, I
32 matches
Mail list logo
