On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Hangbin Liu <liuhang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2017-07-20 23:06 GMT+08:00 Hangbin Liu <liuhang...@gmail.com>:
>>> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
>>> @@ -3637,12 +3637,6 @@ static int inet6_rtm_getroute(struct sk_buff
>>> *in_skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
>>> dst = ip6_route_lookup(net, &fl6, 0);
>>>
>>> rt = container_of(dst, struct rt6_info, dst);
>>> - if (rt->dst.error) {
>>> - err = rt->dst.error;
>>> - ip6_rt_put(rt);
>>> - goto errout;
>>> - }
>>
>> hmm... or instead of remove this check, should we check all the entry? Like
>> if ((rt->dst.error && rt != net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry && rt !=
> ^^ mistake here
>> net->ipv6.ip6_blk_hole_entry) ||
>> rt == net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry )
>
> Sorry, there should be no need to check ip6_null_entry since the
> error is already
> -ENETUNREACH. So how about
Hmm? All of these 3 entries have error set, right??
So we should only check dst.error...
