On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:17:09 -0800 [email protected] (Eric W. Biederman) wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:56:32 +0100 > > Jiri Bohac <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:38:17AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > >> > Jiri Bohac <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > I have the feeling that Eric's patch is the safest solution we > >> > > have so far: > >> > Eric's patch has other regressions, see the discussion. > >> > >> What regression do you mean? I have read the whole discussion > >> thoroughly. You only say in one message that deleting ::1 would > >> propagate to routing daemons. And Eric correctly stated that > >> people couldn't hit this, because deleting ::1 would break > >> things on its own. > >> > >> Is there a real problem with Eric's fix? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > > > > If address is assigned to loopback interface (other than ::1) then > > Eric's fix doesn't work. It is common to use an additional address > > on the lo device when doing routing protocols. > > Sigh. > > I just got back to looking through the rest of my failures in 2.6.37 and > despite it looking like it worked when i tested it, your patch doesn't > actually work on my real work load that has broken. > > At least your change that confirmed that the root problem is somewhere > in the routing. > > Eric The design problem behind all this is that sysctl disable_ipv6 as currently implemented is passive (just changes a variable). It needs to be implemented as a more active step that does the same thing as removing the interface from ipv6. I will look into it after LCA. _______________________________________________ stable mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
