Hello, On Wed, 30 May 2007, KOVACS Krisztian wrote:
> I'm just about to publish the next round of tproxy patches (with the > routing code modifications completely removed), but this issue is still > present. > > I've posted a few patches making omitting this check possible > selectively back in March. Do those changes look acceptable? > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=117310979823297&w=3 Just a small note for now: The code 'if (dev_out == NULL && !(oldflp->flags & FLOWI_FLAG_TRANSPARENT))' can lead to problem in 'fl.oif = dev_out->ifindex;' if fl4_src is not present. Also, i'm not sure if FLOWI_FLAG_TRANSPARENT should cause different values for flags to be cached many times. Users without this flag get EINVAL when fl4_src is not configured, other failures are not cached too. And as fl4_src is considered in both cases (both kinds of callers get same path on success) we don't need changes except in ip_route_output_slow()? By this way I hope we can avoid any possible forking of cache entries just by different flags. Then we can use some more generic name, only for the flowi flag, eg. FLOWI_FLAG_ANYSRC or something better? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html