https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=291867
Bug ID: 291867
Summary: route(8): "route flush" does nothing since netlink
changes
Product: Base System
Version: 15.0-RELEASE
Hardware: Any
OS: Any
Status: New
Severity: Affects Some People
Priority: ---
Component: bin
Assignee: [email protected]
Reporter: [email protected]
Hi,
"route flush" now does nothing. "route -4 flush" and "route -6 flush" both
work individually, but "route flush" (which according to the man page should
still flush all routes) fails silently.
Compare the (sanitised) verbose output from "route -v flush" and "route -6v
flush" on the same machine, one deletes the requested routes, and the other
does nothing.
# route -v flush
23:25:49.505 PID 0 add/repl route 0.0.0.0/0 gw 192.168.XXX.1 iface em0 mtu
1500 table inet.0
23:25:49.506 PID 0 add/repl route 127.0.0.1/32 iface lo0 mtu 16384 table
inet.0
23:25:49.506 PID 0 add/repl route 192.168.XXX.0/24 iface em0 mtu 1500 table
inet.0
23:25:49.506 PID 0 add/repl route 192.168.XXX.136/32 iface lo0 mtu 16384
table inet.0
23:25:49.506 PID 0 add/repl route ::/96 prohibit(reject)
23:25:49.506 PID 0 add/repl route ::/0 gw fe80::7642:7fff:fe21:XXXX%em0
iface em0 mtu 1500 table inet6.0
23:25:49.507 PID 0 add/repl route ::1/128 iface lo0 mtu 16384 table inet6.0
23:25:49.507 PID 0 add/repl route ::ffff:0.0.0.0/96 prohibit(reject)
23:25:49.507 PID 0 add/repl route 2a02:XXXX:XXXX::/64 iface em0 mtu 1500
table inet6.0
23:25:49.507 PID 0 add/repl route 2a02:XXXX:XXXX:0:4aea:62ff:feXX:XXXX/128
iface lo0 mtu 16384 table inet6.0
23:25:49.507 PID 0 add/repl route fd34:2889:c9b8::/64 iface em0 mtu 1500
table inet6.0
23:25:49.507 PID 0 add/repl route fd34:2889:c9b8:0:4aea:62ff:feXX:XXXX/128
iface lo0 mtu 16384 table inet6.0
23:25:49.507 PID 0 add/repl route fe80::%lo0/10 prohibit(reject)
23:25:49.507 PID 0 add/repl route fe80::%em0/64 iface em0 mtu 1500 table
inet6.0
23:25:49.508 PID 0 add/repl route fe80::4aea:62ff:feXX:XXXX%lo0/128 iface
lo0 mtu 16384 table inet6.0
23:25:49.508 PID 0 add/repl route fe80::%lo0/64 iface lo0 mtu 16384 table
inet6.0
23:25:49.508 PID 0 add/repl route fe80::1%lo0/128 iface lo0 mtu 16384 table
inet6.0
23:25:49.508 PID 0 add/repl route ff02::/16 prohibit(reject)
# route -6v flush
23:25:52.692 PID 0 add/repl route ::/96 prohibit(reject)
23:25:52.693 PID 0 add/repl route ::/0 gw fe80::7642:7fff:fe21:XXXX%em0
iface em0 mtu 1500 table inet6.0
23:25:52.693 PID 0 delete route ::/0 table inet6.0
23:25:52.693 PID 0 add/repl route ::1/128 iface lo0 mtu 16384 table inet6.0
23:25:52.693 PID 0 add/repl route ::ffff:0.0.0.0/96 prohibit(reject)
23:25:52.693 PID 0 add/repl route 2a02:XXXX:XXXX::/64 iface em0 mtu 1500
table inet6.0
23:25:52.693 PID 0 add/repl route 2a02:XXXX:XXXX:0:4aea:62ff:fe38:8940/128
iface lo0 mtu 16384 table inet6.0
23:25:52.693 PID 0 add/repl route fd34:2889:c9b8::/64 iface em0 mtu 1500
table inet6.0
23:25:52.694 PID 0 add/repl route fd34:2889:c9b8:0:4aea:62ff:feXX:XXXX/128
iface lo0 mtu 16384 table inet6.0
23:25:52.694 PID 0 add/repl route fe80::%lo0/10 prohibit(reject)
23:25:52.694 PID 0 add/repl route fe80::%em0/64 iface em0 mtu 1500 table
inet6.0
23:25:52.694 PID 0 add/repl route fe80::4aea:62ff:feXX:XXXX%lo0/128 iface
lo0 mtu 16384 table inet6.0
23:25:52.694 PID 0 add/repl route fe80::%lo0/64 iface lo0 mtu 16384 table
inet6.0
23:25:52.694 PID 0 add/repl route fe80::1%lo0/128 iface lo0 mtu 16384 table
inet6.0
23:25:52.694 PID 0 add/repl route ff02::/16 prohibit(reject)
This seems to have been caused by the Netlink changes, presumably
flushroutes_fib_nl() needs to iterate over the address families to match the
old AF_UNSPEC behaviour.
Thanks,
Gavin
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
