From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: replace RTF_ROUTEINFO with RTF_ADDRCONF in  rt6_get_route_info()
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 03:42:02 +0100
Message-ID: <20131107024202.GH8144@order.stressinduktion.org>
References: <5279EF31.4040705@cn.fujitsu.com> <20131107015100.GF8144@order.stressinduktion.org> <527AF477.1060604@cn.fujitsu.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
To: Duan Jiong <duanj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from order.stressinduktion.org ([87.106.68.36]:54589 "EHLO
	order.stressinduktion.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752674Ab3KGCmD (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 6 Nov 2013 21:42:03 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <527AF477.1060604@cn.fujitsu.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:01:27AM +0800, Duan Jiong wrote:
> =E4=BA=8E 2013=E5=B9=B411=E6=9C=8807=E6=97=A5 09:51, Hannes Frederic =
Sowa =E5=86=99=E9=81=93:
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:26:41PM +0800, Duan Jiong wrote:
> >>
> >> As the rfc 4191 said, the Router Preference and Lifetime values in=
 a
> >> ::/0 Route Information Option should override the preference and l=
ifetime
> >> values in the Router Advertisement header. But when the kernel dea=
ls with
> >> a ::/0 Route Information Option, the rt6_get_route_info() always r=
eturn
> >> NULL, that means that overriding will not happen, because those de=
fault
> >> routers were added without flag RTF_ROUTEINFO in rt6_add_dflt_rout=
er().
> >>
> >> In order to match those default routers, we can replace RTF_ROUTEI=
NFO=20
> >> with RTF_ADDRCONF in rt6_get_route_info().
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Duan Jiong <duanj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> >=20
> > Hmm, that looks like a bug. Nice catch!
> >=20
> > Couldn't we just replace the rt6_get_route_info in rt6_route_rcv wi=
th a call
> > to rt6_get_dflt_router? Seems easier, already handles the ::/0 case=
 and also
> > does preserve the check for the RTF_ROUTEINFO flag in rt6_add_route=
_info.
>=20
> Yeah, your idea is better. I will modify my patch.

Stop, stop, stop, sorry that suggestion is plain wrong and stupid.

But I still would like to see the check for RTF_ROUTEINFO happening
in rt6_add_route_info. We should also rename the function if you only q=
uery
for RTF_ADDRCONF and not RTF_ROUTEINFO.

Sorry,

  Hannes