From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian Pomerantz Subject: Re: [PATCH] [IPV4] Fix secondary IP addresses after promotion Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 16:58:25 -0800 Message-ID: <20051105005825.GA942@skull.piratehaven.org> References: <20051104184633.GA16256@skull.piratehaven.org> <436BFE08.6030906@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, pekkas@netcore.fi, jmorris@namei.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, kaber@coreworks.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: To: Patrick McHardy Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <436BFE08.6030906@trash.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 01:34:16AM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > > You assume all addresses following the primary addresses are secondary > addresses of the primary, which is not true with multiple primaries. > This patch (untested) makes sure only to send notification for real > secondaries of the deleted address. It also removes a racy double- > check for IN_DEV_PROMOTE_SECONDARIES - once we've decided to promote > an address checking again opens a window in which address promotion > could be disabled and we end up with only secondaries without a > primary address. > Yeah, I was wondering if there could be primaries after the secondaries. I'm pretty unfamiliar with this code (first looked at it last week) and still don't have a handle on how the primaries interact with the secondaries in the route lookup. Which means it's not clear to me why this was failing to begin with. :) Your patch works for all of the cases I've been testing with so it looks good to go from here. BAPper