[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120612123238.GB15984@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 08:32:38 -0400
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next] ipv4: Add interface option to enable routing
of 127.0.0.0/8
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 07:31:15AM -0400, Thomas Graf wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 07:14:44AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity, would it be more efficient to implement this by
> > optionally adding a prohibit route to the local table for 127.0.0.0/8 to every
> > interface that was brought up, based on weather or not that interfaces
> > route_localnet bool was true or not? It would save the additional checks in the
> > routing path I think. Not sure how much a savings that is, but I thought I
> > would ask.
>
> It's not that simple because we also use the local table for source
> address selection and local address verification. So we would have to
> exclude/include such routes conditionally based on some route lookup
> purpose indicator. Such a prohibit route would have to be valid only
> in the output context.
ah, understood, so that doesn't really save us anything, it just moves the point
at which we do the check.
Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
> --
> 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
>
--
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