On 10/26/2015 09:05 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
Hi Alex,
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 16:52, Alexander Duyck wrote:
On 10/26/2015 07:36 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
Take into consideration that the interface might be disabled for IPv6,
thus switch event type.
Signed-off-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <han...@stressinduktion.org>
---
net/ipv6/addrconf.c | 7 +++++--
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
index d0c685c..c2dcebe 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/addrconf.c
@@ -3149,6 +3149,7 @@ static int addrconf_notify(struct notifier_block *this,
unsigned long event,
case NETDEV_UP:
case NETDEV_CHANGE:
+netdev_change:
if (dev->flags & IFF_SLAVE)
break;
@@ -3244,8 +3245,10 @@ static int addrconf_notify(struct notifier_block *this, unsigned long event,
if (!idev && dev->mtu >= IPV6_MIN_MTU) {
idev = ipv6_add_dev(dev);
- if (!IS_ERR(idev))
- break;
+ if (!IS_ERR(idev)) {
+ event = NETDEV_UP;
+ goto netdev_change;
+ }
}
/*
Seems like this code isn't quite correct. You are calling ipv6_add_dev
for slave devices, and if I understand things correctly I don't believe
that was happening before and may be an unintended side effect.
Hmm, could you quickly help me where I get into this situation? I made
sure I enter the NETDEV_UP part before the IFF_SLAVE test and
disable_ipv6 te
I think I was getting a bit a head of myself. I was looking over the
NETDEV_UP code and thinking that we could just fall into that path since
it is already calling ipv6_add_dev. However now I am wondering if maybe
we need to look at adding an idev allocation somewhere before the
disable_ipv6 check. I assume that is why you were allocating the idev
before you were getting into NETDEV_UP?
You might want to instead just make it so that you only do the jump, and
perhaps change the code in the NETDEV_UP/NETDEV_CHANGE section so that
you test for NETDEV_CHANGE instead of NETDEV_UP. That should be enough
to get the effect you are looking for and I believe there would be no
change to behaviour other than adding IPv6 link-local addresses when the
MTU is increased.
Give me a bit and I can submit an alternative that may actually work out
a bit better I think.
If you go the NETDEV_CHANGE route instead of NETDEV_UP, you end up with
the IF_READY flag already set from ipv6_add_dev and thus won't do any
initialization of the device.
What I meant was that you don't need to change the event. If you change
the check inside the NETDEV_UP/CHANGE code path so that it tests for
event != NETDEV_CHANGE instead of event == NETDEV_UP you don't need to
change the event type.
Sure, I wait.
Might be a bit longer. I just realized that I think there is another
bug here where you are going through the NETDEV_UP path even though the
interface isn't up. I'll run through some testing this morning to work
out the kinks.
- Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
