In usr/src/cmd/cmd-inet/lib/nwamd/routing_events.c:routing_events_v4(),
no IF_STATE events are generated for any routing socket messages if the
address is 0.0.0.0.
However, in ncu_ip.c:nwamd_ncu_handle_if_state_event(), there is code
for a bug workaround that checks the address on the interface if the
routing socket message was a DELADDR/FREEADDR for 0.0.0.0. More
specifically, the following code:
1092 if (family == AF_INET && !if_state->nwe_addr_added) {
1093 /*
1094 * Check for failure due to CR 6745448: if we get a
1095 * report that an address has been deleted, then check
1096 * for interface up, datalink down, and actual address
1097 * non-zero. If that combination is seen, then this is
1098 * a DHCP cached lease, and we need to remove it from
1099 * the system, or it'll louse up the kernel routes
1100 * (which aren't smart enough to avoid dead
1101 * interfaces).
1102 */
1103 /*LINTED*/
1104 if (((struct sockaddr_in *)addr)->sin_addr.s_addr
1105 == INADDR_ANY) {
1106 socklen_t slen;
1107 struct sockaddr_in s;
1108 int pfxlen;
1109
1110 if ((flags & IFF_UP) &&
1111 !(flags & IFF_RUNNING) &&
1112 icfg_get_addr(ifh, (struct sockaddr *)&s,
1113 &slen, &pfxlen, B_FALSE) == ICFG_SUCCESS &&
1114 s.sin_addr.s_addr != INADDR_ANY) {
1115 nlog(LOG_DEBUG, "bug workaround: "
1116 "clear out addr %s on %s",
1117 inet_ntoa(s.sin_addr), ifname);
1118 s.sin_addr.s_addr = INADDR_ANY;
1119 (void) icfg_set_addr(ifh,
1120 (const struct sockaddr *)&s, slen);
1121 }
1122 icfg_close(ifh);
1123 goto exit;
1124 }
1125 }
This code is never executed in nwamd_ncu_handle_if_state_event(). Is
this code necessary? If so, it should be moved to routing_events_v4().
Another reason I ask this question is that libipadm does not allow the
setting of 0.0.0.0 address. The only this that can be done here (after
consulting with libipadm expert Girish) is ipadm_delete_addr() followed
by ipadm_create_addr() with a DHCP address. If the DHCP server is not
available (which appears to be the case here since the comments suggest
that the datalink is down), then the 0.0.0.0 address will be set on the
interface while trying to get the DHCP address and lease. Is this the
intended behavior for such a scenario?
Thanks,
Anurag
