Fair enough. Ack.
On 04/01/2010 08:29 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 04/01/2010 03:16 AM, Steffen Maier wrote:
>> On 03/31/2010 05:19 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> On 03/31/2010 04:54 PM, David Cantrell wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Out "ip route" output parsing did not handle the "ip route" output
>>>>> properly in the case we were trying to find out which interface is
>>>>> used to get to a host when that host lives outside our subnet.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch fixes this. Note this only fixes part of #577193, but as
>>>>> the other part is really unrelated I'm splitting the fix into 2
>>>>> patches.
>>>>> ---
>>>>> network.py | 5 +++--
>>>>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/network.py b/network.py
>>>>> index a3fb8ee..f992d18 100644
>>>>> --- a/network.py
>>>>> +++ b/network.py
>>>>> @@ -786,12 +786,13 @@ class Network:
>>>>> return ""
>>>>>
>>>>> routeInfo = route.split()
>>>>> - if routeInfo[0] != host or len(routeInfo)< 5:
>>>>> + if routeInfo[0] != host or len(routeInfo)< 5 or \
>>
>> We're only interested in the first part for paranoid sanity checking if
>> ip really searched for our given target argument and for the device name
>> next to "dev", so a valid len could be<5 but>= 3. I hope ip output
>> won't shorten in the future, if so checking for<5 would be too strict,
>> <3 would be the absolut minimum, e.g. the following contains all we need:
>> 172.31.1.11 dev eth0
>
> I'm assuming that ip route's info is pretty consistent, our old code
> already had the len < 5 sanity check. If "ip route"'s output turns
> out to not be consistent we will have to stop using it and come
> up with another way to get the info we need.
>
>>>>> + "dev" not in routeInfo or routeInfo.index("dev")> 3:
>>
>> What if ip all of a sudden changes to the following output and "dev"
>> will be beyond index 3?:
>> 111.222.111.222 via 172.31.1.1 foo bar dev eth0 src 172.31.1.13
>
> Again "ip route"'s output has not changed for as long as we've been using
> it, the problem is that it behaves differently when asking for information
> about a route to a host outside one's own subnet. This is what this
> patch addresses.
>
>> BTW, what happens with the second line of ip's output?
>> I'm not familiar enough with python and its split. Does it also split at
>> newline and the parts of the second line are also in routeInfo? If so,
>> then that would be uncool and we'd rather crop anything but the first
>> line before splitting and comparing indexes.
>
> AFAIK the second line also gets split and added to the routeInfo
> array.
Steffen
Linux on System z Development
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martin Jetter
Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
