Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 23:42:05 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 291867] route(8): "route flush" does nothing since netlink changes Message-ID: <bug-291867-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
index | next in thread | raw e-mail
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: bugs@FreeBSD.org Reporter: gavin@FreeBSD.org 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.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-291867-227>