From nobody Fri Jun 04 17:40:31 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 A817DDF0F92 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 17:40:31 +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 4FxVR346C0z4VR4 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 17:40:31 +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 75A3321350 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 17:40:31 +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 154HeVUY021282 for ; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 17:40:31 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 154HeVTj021281 for net@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 4 Jun 2021 17:40:31 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 17:40:31 +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: eugen@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 #17 from Eugene Grosbein --- (In reply to Alexander V. Chernikov from comment #14) I'm talking not about kernel behaviour only but abouth the whole complex of generally used scenarios. Considering also the comment of rgrimes@, let's t= hink about following cases: 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 such PI= NNED route in the FIB. Later some PPP daemon tries to assign that address to its interface as address of local or remote side and it should not fail with EE= XIST but override non-PINNED route. It should fail with EEXIST if PINNED route exists already. 2) Same in case of a routing daemon doing same things but route(8) instead = of another daemon trying to create a route or ifconfig(8) trying to assign same address, they both should fail only due to existing PINNED route. They shou= ld not fail otherwise and silently override possibly pre-existing non-PINNED r= oute including one installed by still running routing daemon. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=