From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: judge the accept_ra_defrtr before calling rt6_route_rcv Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 07:09:45 +0100 Message-ID: <20131129060945.GJ24171@order.stressinduktion.org> References: <529451F0.1060707@cn.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Duan Jiong Return-path: Received: from order.stressinduktion.org ([87.106.68.36]:45866 "EHLO order.stressinduktion.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751296Ab3K2GJq (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Nov 2013 01:09:46 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <529451F0.1060707@cn.fujitsu.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 03:46:56PM +0800, Duan Jiong wrote: > > when dealing with a RA message, if accept_ra_defrtr is false, > the kernel will not add the default route, and then deal with > the following route information options. Unfortunately, those > options maybe contain default route, so let's judge the > accept_ra_defrtr before calling rt6_route_rcv. > > Signed-off-by: Duan Jiong I am ambivalent regarding this change. accept_ra_defrtr protected against adding default routers without routing options and accept_ra_rt_info_max_plen == -1 disables the acceptance of any routing options in router advertisments. I don't have an idea why we need this distinction altough I once used it for testing. But because this change makes it more understandable for users I am ok with that. Greetings, Hannes