Dumb arplookup()

2015-12-02 Thread Martin Pieuchot
If the kernel tries to create (cloned) an ARP entry and found an existing conflicting route, do not try to be clever and just bail. I'm fine with rtalloc(9) taking the KERNEL_LOCK when cloning an entry but I'd prefer the ARP layer to not try to delete anything in the hot path. If you entered a

Re: Dumb arplookup()

2015-12-02 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:44:15AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > If the kernel tries to create (cloned) an ARP entry and found an > existing conflicting route, do not try to be clever and just bail. > > I'm fine with rtalloc(9) taking the KERNEL_LOCK when cloning an entry > but I'd prefer the

Re: Dumb arplookup()

2015-12-02 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2015/12/02 09:44, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > If the kernel tries to create (cloned) an ARP entry and found an > existing conflicting route, do not try to be clever and just bail. > > I'm fine with rtalloc(9) taking the KERNEL_LOCK when cloning an entry > but I'd prefer the ARP layer to not try

Re: Dumb arplookup()

2015-12-02 Thread Martin Pieuchot
On 02/12/15(Wed) 09:26, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2015/12/02 09:44, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > If the kernel tries to create (cloned) an ARP entry and found an > > existing conflicting route, do not try to be clever and just bail. > > > > I'm fine with rtalloc(9) taking the KERNEL_LOCK when

Re: Dumb arplookup()

2015-12-02 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:26:35AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2015/12/02 09:44, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > If the kernel tries to create (cloned) an ARP entry and found an > > existing conflicting route, do not try to be clever and just bail. > > > > I'm fine with rtalloc(9) taking the