On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 09:59:04AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote: > > I think we should not do the same for get_in4(). If interface is not > > assigned > > with ipv4 address, ioctl function will return errno 99. Then user could > > later > > assign a valid ip. But caching error number makes ovs never check again. > > (unless react to RTNLGRP_LINK notification and mark it as invalid) > > > > This also makes me wondering, if the same thing could happen to > get_in6()? > > How do we cope with ipv6 address change? > > I assumed we would get a notification when the status changes, which > would allow us to mark it as invalid. If we don't get the right kind of > notification to invalidate our IPv4/v6 address caches, then we either > shouldn't cache them at all or subscribe to the right kind of > notification. >
After checking the code, I think we may be fine, I remembered I asked this offline before: We already have the NETLINK_ROUTE nl_sock joining multicast group RTNLGRP_LINK and resetting the cache flags correctly when there is an event. However, I could not find any documentation at all regarding the multicast groups... If RTNLGRP_LINK reports both ipv4/6 address change, then we are fine. If not, we need to also join the proper multicast groups (e.g. RTNLGRP_IPV6_IFADDR, RTNLGRP_IPV4_IFADDR) Do you know more about this? Thanks, Alex Wang, _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
