[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131217083048.GB18396@order.stressinduktion.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 09:30:48 +0100
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: Gao feng <gaofeng@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: RongQing Li <roy.qing.li@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: clear RTF_EXPIRES when call ip6_rt_copy
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 03:46:24PM +0800, Gao feng wrote:
> > Gao, do you still remember why you used RTF_ADDRCONF|RTF_DEFAULT?
> >
>
> It's a mystery, I noticed this problem when I wrote the codes.
> http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2012/03/19/7
I already found this thread, thanks. ;)
> I used the flags RTF_ADDRCONF|RTF_DEFAULT because they are exist in
> rt6_{get,add,purge}_dflt_router.
I thought so, but we have to deal with !DEFAULT ADDRCONF routes, too.
> The from of new cloned rt should not be set if it's impossible for the ort
> to be expired.
Ok.
> but seems we should set from if flags have RTF_ADDRCONF bit. RA package
> not only generate the default route.
Exactly, but it is worse:
Prefix routes can be added with expiration time if user space installs a
prefix with valid_lft != infinity. So I fear we already have permament route
entries which expire.
Userspace router advertisment listener already use that.
I fear the flags don't have a well defined semantic any more. :(
As for the original patch in this thread, I would suggest to hold it
back until this mess is understood. Ok?
Thanks,
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