From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5D8615A0 for ; Fri, 5 May 2023 03:10:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7A12C4339B; Fri, 5 May 2023 03:10:44 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1683256245; bh=gP3JbVoAhEnIdGZE2LS46LHhS04/ifjlGArPARUVVNs=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Ibrg3YVuFtyXb4k16mgcJgSavi6YbYoby/Y8esJ9s7p7dj9sMAR8jeiyDopqB/eWv eexn0n0n0VB0yzbKPKbRcnkHqwy9UUrPitBGcq1rpLIsS7PFL6E8Ey/bg7yJprCcWH fUpmt9d/UZggxd8ZNvyDbpLRlMZXymVqeZEJXl8CGWHAq3nfiiCg5nCeDnwKI8OzLy ZWyk887VLoGqh85tJgD5RGWntrg96PU6gVAHS6TwW+5rTA59hGK4edP847jlMzZYMX zQ9r5RfEB9a/8gxPoDG+cePmPBk0UWsdfv3TCyeNd9Ya/B45VmjrOXHVKfIlmWfvXD OkkX902W59t5Q== Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 21:10:43 -0600 From: David Ahern To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: Aleksey Shumnik , netdev@vger.kernel.org, waltje@uwalt.nl.mugnet.org, Jakub Kicinski , gw4pts@gw4pts.ampr.org, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, "willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com" , gnault@redhat.com Subject: Re: [BUG] Dependence of routing cache entries on the ignore-df flag Message-ID: <20230505031043.GA4009@u2004-local> References: <20230503113528.315485f1@hermes.local> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230503113528.315485f1@hermes.local> On Wed, May 03, 2023 at 11:35:28AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > On Wed, 3 May 2023 18:01:03 +0300 > Aleksey Shumnik wrote: > > > Might you answer the questions: > > 1. How the ignore-df flag and adding entries to the routing cache is > > connected? In which kernel files may I look to find this connection? > > 2. Is this behavior wrong? > > 3. Is there any way to completely disable the use of the routing > > cache? (as far as I understand, it used to be possible to set the > > rhash_entries parameter to 0, but now there is no such parameter) > > 4. Why is an entry added to the routing cache if a suitable entry was > > eventually found in the arp table (it is added directly, without being > > temporarily added to the routing table)? > > What kernel version. The route cache has been completely removed from > the kernel for a long time. These are exceptions (fib_nh_exception), not the legacy routing cache.