[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK1hOcPTStgJ+PF8Mq02tDz2nvSX9U74+gBRoGVYXCDN2TnfJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:53:49 +0200
From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To: "D.S. Ljungmark" <ljungmark@...io.se>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
Don Howard <dhoward@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT] Networking
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:17 PM, D.S. Ljungmark <ljungmark@...io.se> wrote:
>
> On 29/04/15 16:51, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> # for f in /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/*/hop_limit; do echo -n $f:; cat $f; done
>> /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/all/hop_limit:64
>> /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/default/hop_limit:64
>> /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/enp0s25/hop_limit:1 <=== THIS
>> /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/lo/hop_limit:64
>> /proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/wlp3s0/hop_limit:64
>>
>> As you see, the interface which received RAs still lowered
>> its hop_limit to 1. I take it means that the bug is still present
>> (right? I'm not a network guy...).
>
> It might not be present in the _kernel_. Do you run NetworkManager on
> your system? If so, see below.
Yes. "killall -STOP NetworkManager" and now I see that bug is fixed.
Sorry for the false alarm.
(If anyone would want to reproduce this, NB:
be sure to also enable accept_ra* sysctls,
otherwise kernel will ignore RAs and bug wouldn't be reproduced
on previous kernels too).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists