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 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?
OK claudio@ > 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); > } > -- :wq Claudio