From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Haller Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ipv6 addrconf: add IFA_F_NOPREFIXROUTE flag to suppress creation of IP6 routes Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 13:14:34 +0100 Message-ID: <1389096874.2248.7.camel@weing> References: <20140106160139.GB10204@order.stressinduktion.org> <1389029375-17698-1-git-send-email-thaller@redhat.com> <20140107120111.GB24730@order.stressinduktion.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-WUEsv9Fs0Sa1QXNqf2dK" Cc: Jiri Pirko , netdev@vger.kernel.org, stephen@networkplumber.org, dcbw@redhat.com To: Hannes Frederic Sowa Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47784 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750851AbaAGMO4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Jan 2014 07:14:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20140107120111.GB24730@order.stressinduktion.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --=-WUEsv9Fs0Sa1QXNqf2dK Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 13:01 +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 06:29:35PM +0100, Thomas Haller wrote: > > @@ -3662,8 +3666,10 @@ static int inet6_addr_modify(struct inet6_ifaddr= *ifp, u32 ifa_flags, > > if (!(ifp->flags&IFA_F_TENTATIVE)) > > ipv6_ifa_notify(0, ifp); > > =20 > > - addrconf_prefix_route(&ifp->addr, ifp->prefix_len, ifp->idev->dev, > > - expires, flags); > > + if (ifa_flags & IFA_F_NOPREFIXROUTE =3D=3D 0) { > > + addrconf_prefix_route(&ifp->addr, ifp->prefix_len, ifp->idev->dev, > > + expires, flags); > > + } >=20 > Actually, if we switch from IFA_F_NOPREFIXROUTE to !IFA_F_NOPREFIXROUTE w= e > have to remove the prefix route, no? >=20 > Greetings, >=20 > Hannes >=20 hi Hannes, I am about to resent the patch, so that IFA_F_NOPREFIXROUTE is saved in the flags of the address. Later, when deleting such address, this is used to indicate ~not~ to delete any prefix route... just as you suggest in your earlier email (if I understood you right). About this suggestion now, I tend to "no". Yes, it could be sensible, on the other hand, if user space already controls the routes (as indicated by it's use of IFA_F_NOPREFIXROUTES), I would just leave it to the user to clean up the wrong prefix route. What do you think? Thomas --=-WUEsv9Fs0Sa1QXNqf2dK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAABAgAGBQJSy++qAAoJECnCNm5N/FcozYcQAJzIpsOSkRM7KiMrScPlH/k2 ipzunrAz6AlZXoq9Gd1SKjCwXZz2bJrXRmN4AYmGQloxLJOYTLpOx/rXMIs9SeTN itxayiZKDmo4FzEPnLGG1rFELM0fhPZ2WsqAL6s9CcGNXyawp8+db/7tD8IIi6ES tSdmwmJIH2paAMpZZbRtFvEwKC1mkPXiFtdtslqRg/jc2qS8fN2TXG5ka8zGGET2 yP2CeRvTWz3hNP5wu2JH63hQJKtA/f8MWrpjC++PJnox4WEMA4JShY32qayoLZ29 6/62NXnrtyNd3qvR/Ocd8hzc4CNUlI7/60lCuswDDvDdT6hnkMmtTAUQJAnoivVI 7aI8lWX4zoGEAR1cvjlr+tJdd3Uob1NguOIzHM6FRb4gHUdrrSo+Vi2RVJMcZmDy oWlY8OXh0AxU5nWAScLNwXO3x0WpBw/jEPHzAkhOtZyQ+P28CCgMyLPfyk1NPQWU ArgUOBdV4stpEYQqgvJJt/iBrhtCaLqKhiPMM1IwxYmq9orccUxiR4umPTp70KAZ vXb7/3loEKvPVUB8OYG15x8OpX+kHHyQv2xdMt0dlFhl74m02VN+B5YZ8iWFTgBp TWhm7gbvfiLII2n1xHKPaO9YZV8k7QwYf/hf3kZNYSazuDV8zM3FG26GHCgbYBNc WwzDzo8Dz3HyNI6bXlpA =iTLN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-WUEsv9Fs0Sa1QXNqf2dK--