From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Duan Jiong Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] ipv6: Do route updating for redirect in ndisc layer Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:52:42 +0800 Message-ID: <5239076A.4080406@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <52327F00.4040802@cn.fujitsu.com> <5232806B.6050601@cn.fujitsu.com> <20130917.202936.2080212548361553334.davem@davemloft.net> <20130918013903.GC8947@order.stressinduktion.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE To: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:36613 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750942Ab3IRBxo convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Sep 2013 21:53:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130918013903.GC8947@order.stressinduktion.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: =E4=BA=8E 2013=E5=B9=B409=E6=9C=8818=E6=97=A5 09:39, Hannes Frederic So= wa =E5=86=99=E9=81=93: > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 08:29:36PM -0400, David Miller wrote: >> From: Duan Jiong >> Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:03:07 +0800 >> >>> From: Duan Jiong >>> >>> Do the whole verification and route updating in ndisc >>> lay and then just call into icmpv6_notify() to notify >>> the upper protocols. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Duan Jiong >> >> This is completely broken, and I believe your patch set fundamentall= y >> is too. >> >> We absolutely _must_ handle the redirect at the socket level when >> we are able to, otherwise we cannot specify the mark properly and >> the mark is an essential part of the key used to find the correct >> route to work with. >> >> I am not applying this patch series until you deal with this >> deficiency. I am not willing to consider changes which stop using t= he >> more precise keying information available from a socket. >=20 > Oh, Duan, I am very sorry for not catching this earlier. We use the > sk->mark to select the proper routing table where we clone the rt6_in= fo into. > And we only get that value out of the sockets. I missed that. We shou= ld leave > the redirect logic in the socket layer where it is possible. >=20 > But parts of this series are still valid. We need to fix redirects fo= r tunnels > and I do think we can still simplify some code in the error handlers. >=20 I got it. Thanks, Duan