[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110721.171809.2276771570007039309.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 17:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] ipv6: all routes share same inetpeer
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 07:29:34 +0200
> Le mardi 19 juillet 2011 à 11:59 -0700, David Miller a écrit :
>> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 20:57:50 +0200
>>
>> > Le mardi 19 juillet 2011 à 20:20 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
>> >> Le mardi 19 juillet 2011 à 10:37 -0700, David Miller a écrit :
>> >> > From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>> >> > Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 19:23:49 +0200
>> >> >
>> >> > > Maybe you can find the bug before me ?
>> >> >
>> >> > I think when we add the route we cow the metrics almost immediately.
>> >> > The daddr is, unfortunately, fully prefixed at that point.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, we shall provide a second ip6_rt_copy() argument, with the
>> >> destination address.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hmm, or maybe just change the dst_copy_metrics(&rt->dst, &ort->dst);
>> > call done from ip6_rt_copy(), to avoid doing the COW if not really
>> > needed ?
>>
>> This is ok if it handles the case where ort's metrics point to
>> writable inetpeer memory.
>
> OK but if ort's metrics are writeable we must perform the dst_copy_metrics()
> and therefore fill rt6i_dst before ?
If it's writable, then there are no problems.
Oh actually, I see what you mean. This is a mess.
I'll try to think about this some more and look at your most
recent patches.
--
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