[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTin0mNkfaDvs3ZrEhxY27kdmZLh8ikKNpc-MXC44@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:22:23 +0100
From: Maciej Żenczykowski <zenczykowski@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>, greearb@...delatech.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: ip rule and/or route problem in 2.6.37-rc5+
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 18:22, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote:
>> Tom, please acknowledge this regression you've added to the tree.
>
> Acknowledged. Looking at it.
>
> Tom
This is definitely a regression, and the fault is definitely with this code.
Indeed, the code is fundamentally flawed. I've been trying to come up
with a fix, but I'm beginning to think we're barking up the wrong tree
here.
Currently my preference is leaning towards using setsockopt(SOL_IP,
IP_TRANSPARENT) [possibly with some sk->transparent tcp inheritence
fixes] instead.
I definitely want this functionality though, since it's wonderfully
useful for testing (and for serving as well).
Could we please revert this ( 4465b469008bc03b98a1b8df4e9ae501b6c69d4b
) and make sure the revert makes it into 2.6.37? We definitely don't
want to ship 2.6.37 with this patch in its current state.
-- Maciej
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists