On 10/29/2015 16:56, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 10/29/2015 9:46 AM, Bryan Drewery wrote: >> On 10/29/15 9:42 AM, Eric van Gyzen wrote: >>> On 10/29/2015 11:25, Bryan Drewery wrote: >>>> # ifconfig >>>> igb0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500 >>>> >>>> options=403bb<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,JUMBO_MTU,VLAN_HWCSUM,TSO4,TSO6,VLAN_HWTSO> >>>> ether c8:0a:a9:04:39:78 >>>> inet 10.10.0.7 netmask 0xffff0000 broadcast 10.10.255.255 >>>> inet 10.10.7.2 netmask 0xffff0000 broadcast 10.10.255.255 >>>> inet 10.10.0.9 netmask 0xffff0000 broadcast 10.10.255.255 >>>> nd6 options=23<PERFORMNUD,ACCEPT_RTADV,AUTO_LINKLOCAL> >>>> media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex>) >>>> status: active >>>> >>>> # ifconfig igb0 inet 10.10.0.9 -alias >>>> # arp -an|grep 10.10.0.9 >>>> ? (10.10.0.9) at c8:0a:a9:04:39:78 on igb0 permanent [ethernet] >>>> # arp -d 10.10.0.9 >>>> arp: writing to routing socket: Operation not permitted >>>> >>>> I swear this is not normal. I'm on an older build as well, r288951. >>> >>> That definitely looks abnormal. See what "route get" says. I think >>> that's the error you get when there is a route for that address. >>> >> >> # netstat -rn|grep 10.10.0.9 >> # route get 10.10.0.9 >> route to: lapbox >> destination: 10.10.0.0 >> mask: 255.255.0.0 >> fib: 0 >> interface: igb0 >> flags: <UP,DONE,PINNED> >> recvpipe sendpipe ssthresh rtt,msec mtu weight expire >> 0 0 0 0 1500 1 0 >> # route get 5.5.5.5 >> route to: 5.5.5.5 >> destination: default >> mask: default >> gateway: router.asus.com >> fib: 0 >> interface: igb0 >> flags: <UP,GATEWAY,DONE,STATIC> >> recvpipe sendpipe ssthresh rtt,msec mtu weight expire >> 0 0 0 0 1500 1 0 >> >> For more context, this current system had 10.10.0.9 added to it. I >> started up a VM which also started using 10.10.0.9 and managed to "win" >> on the local network for owning it. (I don't know arp and this stuff >> well). I then came to this system to remove the alias and the arp entry >> to allow me to connect from it and have gotten into this situation. >> > > Just saw this in dmesg, which is what I described: > > arp: 08:00:27:12:c1:a5 is using my IP address 10.10.0.9 on igb0! > arp: 08:00:27:12:c1:a5 is using my IP address 10.10.0.9 on igb0! > arp: 08:00:27:12:c1:a5 attempts to modify permanent entry for 10.10.0.9 > on igb0 > arp: 08:00:27:12:c1:a5 attempts to modify permanent entry for 10.10.0.9 > on igb0 > arp: 08:00:27:12:c1:a5 attempts to modify permanent entry for 10.10.0.9 > on igb0 > arp: 08:00:27:12:c1:a5 attempts to modify permanent entry for 10.10.0.9 > on igb0 The kernel should have removed the arp entry when you removed the alias. I just played with this on r289837 (one week old), and I could not reproduce the failure. In particular, r289501 sounds interesting, even though your interface is up. EricReceived on Fri Oct 30 2015 - 13:26:52 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:00 UTC