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 conflicting entry in your routing table, that's your
problem, you deal with it.
Ok?
Index: netinet/if_ether.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/netinet/if_ether.c,v
retrieving revision 1.191
diff -u -p -r1.191 if_ether.c
--- netinet/if_ether.c 1 Dec 2015 12:22:18 -0000 1.191
+++ netinet/if_ether.c 2 Dec 2015 08:40:13 -0000
@@ -707,12 +707,9 @@ arplookup(u_int32_t addr, int create, in
flags = (create) ? (RT_REPORT|RT_RESOLVE) : 0;
rt = rtalloc((struct sockaddr *)&sin, flags, tableid);
- if (rt == NULL)
- return (NULL);
- if ((rt->rt_flags & RTF_GATEWAY) || (rt->rt_flags & RTF_LLINFO) == 0 ||
+ if (!rtisvalid(rt) || ISSET(rt->rt_flags, RTF_GATEWAY) ||
+ !ISSET(rt->rt_flags, RTF_LLINFO) ||
rt->rt_gateway->sa_family != AF_LINK) {
- if (create && (rt->rt_flags & RTF_CLONED))
- rtdeletemsg(rt, tableid);
rtfree(rt);
return (NULL);
}
