On 8/12/17 1:42 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
> Hi Ido,
>
>>> - if ((rt->dst.dev == dev || !dev) &&
>>> + if ((rt->dst.dev == dev || !dev ||
>>> + rt->rt6i_idev->dev == dev) &&
>>
>> Can you please explain why this line is needed? While host routes aren't
>> removed from the FIB by
On 8/11/17 6:25 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
> By "a patch to fix that" do you mean after your patch, for every rt6,
> rt6->rt6i_idev will be the same as rt6->dst.dev?
FIB entries should have them the same device with my patch.
The copies done (ip6_rt_cache_alloc and ip6_rt_pcpu_alloc) will have to
set
On 8/11/17 6:10 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
> I think we have a potential fix for this issue.
> Martin and I found that when addrconf_dst_alloc() creates a rt6, it is
> possible that rt6->dst.dev points to loopback device while
> rt6->rt6i_idev->dev points to a real device.
> When the real device goes
On 8/13/17 2:56 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
>> Looking at my patch to move host routes from loopback to device with the
>> address, I have this:
>>
>> @@ -2789,7 +2808,8 @@ static int fib6_ifdown(struct rt6_info *rt, void *arg)
>> const struct arg_dev_net *adn = arg;
>> const struct
