From nobody Fri Jun 04 21:08:55 2021 X-Original-To: net@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454935D0090 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 21:08:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Fxb3W0Mmtz4rbP for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 21:08:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB05D23DDB for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 21:08:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 154L8sG7045511 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 21:08:54 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 154L8s57045510 for net@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 21:08:54 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 256393] Issue with recreation of ppp/tun interfaces Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2021 21:08:55 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa, regression X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: melifaro@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: melifaro@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: mfc-stable13? mfc-stable12- mfc-stable11- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D256393 --- Comment #20 from Alexander V. Chernikov --- (In reply to Eugene Grosbein from comment #17) > 1) Some routing daemon installs to FIB some /32 route learned dynamically= . It may have its reasons and it should not fail unless there is already su= ch PINNED route in the FIB. Later some PPP daemon tries to assign that addr= ess to its interface as address of local or remote side and it should not f= ail with EEXIST but override non-PINNED route. It should fail with EEXIST i= f PINNED route exists already. "and it should not fail unless there is already such PINNED route in the FI= B" - currently we have 2-level priority system (PINNED and non-PINNED, https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/tree/sys/net/route/route_ctl.c?h=3Dstable/13&i= d=3Dae23d302479#n467 ). Routes within a single priority are treated equally. If something tries = to insert a route, which already exists, the following options are possible: 1) different priorities for the current/inserted route -> fail if lower, replace if higher 2) same priorities, one of nexthop is not multipath-capable (interface or temporary route) -> EEXIST 3) same priorities, both nexthops are multipath-capable -> extend/form multipath group Other than the clarification above, the described behaviour is the current behavior. > 2) Same in case of a routing daemon doing same things but route(8) instea= d of another daemon trying to create a route or ifconfig(8) trying to assig= n same address, they both should fail only due to existing PINNED route. Th= ey should not fail otherwise and silently override possibly pre-existing no= n-PINNED route including one installed by still running routing daemon. IIRC route(8) does not use RTF_PINNED during addition, so route installation may fail even w/o PINNED route. I'm not sure if that's something that we sh= ould change. Also, currently, override triggers a couple of rtsock notifications to allow routing daemons to track the changes, so it's not exactly "silent". The rest describes the current system behaviour. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=