It is possible for flowspec entries containing ICMP rule to insert PBR
entries based on ICMP type and ICMP code.
Flowspec ICMP filtering can either have icmp type or icmp code or both.
Not all combinations are permitted:
- if icmp code is provided, then it is not possible to derive the
correct icmp value. This will not be installed
- range of ICMP is authorised or list of ICMP, but not both.
- on receiving a list of ICMPtype/code, each ICMP type is attempted to
be associated to ICMP code. If not found, then ICMPtype is combined
with all known ICMP code values associated to that ICMP type.
- if a specific ICMP type/code is needed, despite the ICMP code/type
combination does not exist, then it is possible to do it by forging a
FS ICMP type/code specific for that.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com>
The icmp type/code is displayed.
Also, the flags are correctly set in case ICMP protocol is elected.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com>
This is an additional correction after 45981fda06 / PR #2462. I hope
this fixes the Coverity warning (I've added an additional check for ensuring
the string provided by the inotify read is zero-terminated).
Signed-off-by: F. Aragon <paco@voltanet.io>
Unless someone intentionally changes MCAST_ALL_ROUTERS ("224.0.0.2") with a
wrong IP, this should never fail, so the fix is using "(void)" at the left
of the function call, as an explicit way of indicating we discard the
return value on purpose.
Signed-off-by: F. Aragon <paco@voltanet.io>
Additional fix over d94023d85c (PR #2546)
Removed all pointer arithmetic used for the checks, while keeping same
coverage. I hope this removes the Coverity warning (If this don't fix it, I'll
make Coverity work with a fork and try there as many times as necessary)
Signed-off-by: F. Aragon <paco@voltanet.io>
Additional fix over 18e994a043 (PR #2457)
Previous correction was not enough for fixing the Coverity warning. Now we
ensure we don't overflow the buffer.
Signed-off-by: F. Aragon <paco@voltanet.io>
When a filter function fails to work correctly, we get an
error message that something has gone wrong. Unfortunately
we may not have any clues as to where the decode failure
happened. Add a backtrace to give us a clue.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
When we receive a netlink message from the kernel we have
handler functions for when we send a netlink command, if these
return a failure ( < 0 ) then we output that we had a parse
issue. But if all we get is:
2018-06-21T23:47:45.298156+00:00 qct-ix1-08 zebra[1484]: netlink-cmd (NS 0) filter function error
Then it is not very useful to figure out *where* the error happened.
Add more error code when in a decode path to hopefully allow us
to figure out where this message is coming from.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
