On Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 11:43:17AM +0900, George V. Neville-Neil wrote: > At Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:09:57 -0400, > Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote: > > > > I've already made noise about this before, so I'll be brief. I plan on > > committing the following fix that prevents the routing code from being > > recursed upon such that RTM_RESOLVE causes the embryonic new route to > > be looked up again. I realize that probably no one will bother trying > > to see this bug in action, but all you need to do is send some UDP6 to > > ff02::1%<if> as a user, with INVARIANTS turned on. > > > > Are there any objections? It would be nice to have this in 5-STABLE, > > in case anyone actually wants to have IPv6. > > Unless I am missing something (I have not applied the patch) it's not > doing anything. What does the new code actually do? > > I'll try to try this patch out later.
Sorry, I should have provided a higher number of lines of context. It prevents a call to nd6_lookup() and reentry into the route table when entered via RTM_RESOLVE. I.e. nd6_rtrequest(), nd6_is_addr_neighbor(), nd6_lookup(). I appreciate you looking at it; I've had the problem for a year and no one bothered to really look at it. -- Brian Fundakowski Feldman \'[ FreeBSD ]''''''''''\ <> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ The Power to Serve! \ Opinions expressed are my own. \,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,\ _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
