[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130910225023.GB4794@order.stressinduktion.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:50:23 +0200
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: Duan Jiong <duanj.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: Do route updating for redirect in ndisc layer
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 03:09:56PM +0800, Duan Jiong wrote:
> diff --git a/net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c b/net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c
> index 5c71501..61fe8e5 100644
> --- a/net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c
> +++ b/net/ipv6/tcp_ipv6.c
> @@ -382,14 +382,6 @@ static void tcp_v6_err(struct sk_buff *skb, struct inet6_skb_parm *opt,
>
> np = inet6_sk(sk);
>
> - if (type == NDISC_REDIRECT) {
> - struct dst_entry *dst = __sk_dst_check(sk, np->dst_cookie);
> -
> - if (dst)
> - dst->ops->redirect(dst, sk, skb);
> - goto out;
> - }
> -
You dropped the "goto out" here in case of an NDISC_REDIRECT, so this sends an
EPROTO further up the socket layer. Was this intended?
Also:
In some _err() functions there is this check, e.g. ah6.c:
621 if (type != ICMPV6_DEST_UNREACH &&
622 type != ICMPV6_PKT_TOOBIG &&
623 type != NDISC_REDIRECT)
624 return;
It could actually be adjusted now as we don't handle NDISC_REDIRECTs here any
more. I don't see any side-effects down the code in these functions. We could
also only just match on ICMPV6_PKT_TOOBIG. Can you confirm?
Greetings,
Hannes
--
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