From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Ahern Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] net: ipv6: put host and anycast routes on device with address Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 18:14:18 -0600 Message-ID: <0bcba874-7fc3-508c-bf78-ae5832312845@gmail.com> References: <1502997440-32334-1-git-send-email-dsahern@gmail.com> <87wp60lb70.fsf@stressinduktion.org> <75e79efe-4a41-7b15-b7bb-8ed0624b72b5@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org To: David Ahern , Hannes Frederic Sowa Return-path: Received: from mail-pg0-f68.google.com ([74.125.83.68]:36865 "EHLO mail-pg0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751077AbdHSAOU (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Aug 2017 20:14:20 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-f68.google.com with SMTP id 83so17193961pgb.4 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:14:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <75e79efe-4a41-7b15-b7bb-8ed0624b72b5@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 8/18/17 6:05 PM, David Ahern wrote: > On 8/18/17 5:15 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: >> Hello David, >> >> David Ahern writes: >> >>> @@ -2688,15 +2716,9 @@ struct rt6_info *addrconf_dst_alloc(struct inet6_dev *idev, >>> { >>> u32 tb_id; >>> struct net *net = dev_net(idev->dev); >>> - struct net_device *dev = net->loopback_dev; >>> + struct net_device *dev = idev->dev; >>> struct rt6_info *rt; >>> >>> - /* use L3 Master device as loopback for host routes if device >>> - * is enslaved and address is not link local or multicast >>> - */ >>> - if (!rt6_need_strict(addr)) >>> - dev = l3mdev_master_dev_rcu(idev->dev) ? : dev; >>> - >>> rt = ip6_dst_alloc(net, dev, DST_NOCOUNT); >>> if (!rt) >>> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); >> >> I am afraid this change might break Java: >> >> >> >> I am all in for this change, but maybe it might be necessary to mask >> RTF_LOCAL routes with "lo" somehow. > > That's asinine. The if_inet6 processing is just getting the 'lo' > interface index. Why scan the file looking for that? The ipv6_route > processing is assembling routes against the loopback device regardless > of what the route is. Do you know why - what the route list is used for? If I read it correctly, seems to be a 2.4 workaround: - only user of the route list is needsLoopbackRoute() - only caller of needsLoopbackRoute is here: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/file/65464a307408/src/java.base/unix/native/libnet/net_util_md.c#l828