From owner-freebsd-jail@freebsd.org Sun May 29 01:56:27 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-jail@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2698B52F8D for ; Sun, 29 May 2016 01:56:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from allanjude@freebsd.org) Received: from mx1.scaleengine.net (mx1.scaleengine.net [209.51.186.6]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7DC016B6 for ; Sun, 29 May 2016 01:56:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from allanjude@freebsd.org) Received: from [10.1.1.2] (unknown [10.1.1.2]) (Authenticated sender: allanjude.freebsd@scaleengine.com) by mx1.scaleengine.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E4BEADA3F for ; Sun, 29 May 2016 01:56:20 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [Bug 208001] After turning off the jail does not remove network routes To: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org References: From: Allan Jude Message-ID: <8a575b8b-e9e9-d79c-0b31-708e7bbd35fd@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 21:56:20 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-jail@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion about FreeBSD jail\(8\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 01:56:28 -0000 On 2016-05-28 20:30, bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org wrote: > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208001 > > --- Comment #5 from Jamie Gritton --- > Yes, of course there are cases where something besides a /32 is appropriate - > that is why jail(8) allows that. However, as I mentioned it did appear that > you had violated the specification that an alias should be on a non-conflicting > netmask. > > The fact remains that I am unable to reproduce your problem. Perhaps I could > if I had your entire configuration - all jails, all other network setup. > > jail(8) simply calls ifconfig(8) with "alias" to add IP addresses, and with > "-alias" to remove them - see the output of "jail -vc" and "jail -vr". The > jail will not be removed if the "ifconfig ... -alias" command fails, which > implies that the command is succeeding. Unless of course there actually is a > bug in the way jail(8) is running this program. My guess is the command is > succeeding, but isn't removing some arp entry because the alias when > incorrectly specified when it was created. > > If it's clear (from "jail -v") that the correct ifconfig commands are being > run, then this might be considered an ifconfig bug. If the correct commands > aren't being run, then it could be a jail bug. > I think that is actually the problem ifconfig -alias only accepts the IP address, not with the CIDR. #ifconfig lo0 alias 10.0.0.1/24 #ifconfig lo0 -alias 10.0.0.1/24 ifconfig: 10.0.0.1/24: bad value you want to do just: #ifconfig lo0 -alias 10.0.0.1 So jail(8) needs to strip the /24 off when passing it to ifconfig -alias -- Allan Jude