[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140730.171643.580498897333179169.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 17:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: ixaphire@...tor.net
Cc: cwang@...pensource.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
pinkbyte@...too.org, edumazet@...gle.com, therbert@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ip_tunnel(ipv4): fix tunnels with "local any remote
$remote_ip"
From: Dmitry Popov <ixaphire@...tor.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 21:49:31 +0400
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 16:39:23 -0700
> Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Dmitry Popov <ixaphire@...tor.net> wrote:
>> > if (dst) {
>> > - if (dst->obsolete && dst->ops->check(dst, cookie) == NULL) {
>> > + if (!dst->obsolete || dst->ops->check(dst, cookie)) {
>> > + *saddr = idst->saddr;
>> > + } else {
>>
>> I am wondering if this always works, that is, if saddr could be still valid
>> as long as dst is valid?
>
> Right, this is not a very smooth place, but a) it should work with current ipv4
> route implementation (it obsoletes all dst_entries on any route/addr change).
> Yes, we shouldn't rely on implementation, but b) I don't know how (and why) this
> implementation should be changed to break it. I think the assumption that
> dst_entry is obsoleted when saddr is changed is pretty natural.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Indeed, that is the current state of affairs and I can't see how we'd ever
change this in a way that would break this.
So patch applied, thank you.
--
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