On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Alexander Duyck
wrote:
> On 08/10/2015 04:50 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Zang MingJie writes:
>>
>>> Here comes several options:
>>>
>>> 1. reject local next hop w/ EINVAL
>
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Alexander Duyck
alexander.du...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/10/2015 04:50 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
Hello,
Zang MingJie zealot0...@gmail.com writes:
Here comes several options:
1. reject local next hop w/ EINVAL
2. delete route when local next hop
of code, not sure if worth it
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Zang MingJie writes:
>> Days ago I mistakenly set the gateway address on my box, then add the
>> default router, after I deleted the address my box can't access
>> Interne
of code, not sure if worth it
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
han...@stressinduktion.org wrote:
Hello,
Zang MingJie zealot0...@gmail.com writes:
Days ago I mistakenly set the gateway address on my box, then add the
default router, after I deleted the address my box can't
Days ago I mistakenly set the gateway address on my box, then add the
default router, after I deleted the address my box can't access
Internet and all things looks fine. It takes me several hours to
figure out it is an kernel bug.
>On Sat, Aug 8, 2015, 1:00 AM Hannes Frederic Sowa
>wrote:
>If
Days ago I mistakenly set the gateway address on my box, then add the
default router, after I deleted the address my box can't access
Internet and all things looks fine. It takes me several hours to
figure out it is an kernel bug.
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015, 1:00 AM Hannes Frederic Sowa
, but the routing decision is
totally different.
SAME routing table, DIFFERENT routing decision, there MUST be bugs in kernel.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Alexander Duyck
wrote:
> On 08/06/2015 03:13 AM, Zang MingJie wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Alexander Duyck
>>
, but the routing decision is
totally different.
SAME routing table, DIFFERENT routing decision, there MUST be bugs in kernel.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Alexander Duyck
alexander.h.du...@redhat.com wrote:
On 08/06/2015 03:13 AM, Zang MingJie wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Alexander Duyck
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Alexander Duyck
wrote:
> On 08/05/2015 02:06 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>>
>> [ please cc netdev ]
>>
>> On 08/05/2015 10:56 AM, Zang MingJie wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> I found a bug when remove an ip a
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Alexander Duyck
alexander.du...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/05/2015 02:06 AM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
[ please cc netdev ]
On 08/05/2015 10:56 AM, Zang MingJie wrote:
Hi:
I found a bug when remove an ip address which is referenced by a routing
entry.
step
Hi:
I found a bug when remove an ip address which is referenced by a routing entry.
step to reproduce:
ip li add type dummy
ip li set dummy0 up
ip ad add 10.0.0.1/24 dev dummy0
ip ad add 10.0.0.2/24 dev dummy0
ip ro add default via 10.0.0.2/24
ip ad del 10.0.0.2/24 dev dummy0
after deleting
Hi:
I found a bug when remove an ip address which is referenced by a routing entry.
step to reproduce:
ip li add type dummy
ip li set dummy0 up
ip ad add 10.0.0.1/24 dev dummy0
ip ad add 10.0.0.2/24 dev dummy0
ip ro add default via 10.0.0.2/24
ip ad del 10.0.0.2/24 dev dummy0
after deleting
irtual device
vxlan0, fix it urgently!
Mar 1 21:52:55 debian kernel: [ 8805.012189] Dead loop on virtual device
vxlan0, fix it urgently!
Mar 1 21:52:56 debian kernel: [ 8806.020593] Dead loop on virtual device
vxlan0, fix it urgently!
the patch should fix the problem
Signed-off-by
device
vxlan0, fix it urgently!
Mar 1 21:52:55 debian kernel: [ 8805.012189] Dead loop on virtual device
vxlan0, fix it urgently!
Mar 1 21:52:56 debian kernel: [ 8806.020593] Dead loop on virtual device
vxlan0, fix it urgently!
the patch should fix the problem
Signed-off-by: Zang MingJie
14 matches
Mail list logo
