From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
To: Tim Wong <kanman.wong@dish.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, dsahern@kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
horms@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] ipv4: devinet: list global scope addresses before link scope addresses
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 12:01:14 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260721090114.GA2510713@shredder> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPT8rhu_NGbLd54RFWRxO+=7BHhJ0pS5yeOgo5kNmq4qtQ=t8w@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 12:16:23PM -0600, Tim Wong wrote:
> __inet_insert_ifa() inserts a new primary address by advancing an
> insertion pointer past every existing primary address whose scope
> is >= the new address's scope. Because IPv4 scope values are
> numerically smaller for wider scopes (RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE < ... <
> RT_SCOPE_LINK < RT_SCOPE_HOST), the comparison
>
> ifa->ifa_scope <= ifa1->ifa_scope
>
> is true for a global-scope new address against essentially every
> existing entry, so the new address is pushed all the way to the
> tail of the primary address list, ending up *after* any link-scope
> addresses that were configured earlier.
>
> On an interface carrying a mix of global- and link-scope IPv4
> addresses (e.g. a routable address alongside an RFC 3927
> 169.254.0.0/16 address, or any address explicitly assigned link
> scope), this makes the resulting order in in_dev->ifa_list -- and
> therefore the order addresses are reported via netlink
> (RTM_GETADDR), ioctl (SIOCGIFCONF), and /proc/net -- depend on
> configuration order rather than scope. Userspace consumers that
> pick the first address returned for an interface (e.g. via
> getifaddrs()) can end up preferring a link-scope address over a
> global one.
It's a user space problem. The kernel provides all the needed
information for user space to make an educated choice.
There was already an attempt to change IPv6's intra-scope order to match
IPv4's and it broke user space:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260529112357.5079-1-fmancera@suse.de/
Now you propose changing IPv4's inter-scope order to match IPv6's. It
will most likely break user space and kernel selftests. Please solve
this in user space.
>
> IPv6 already avoids this: ipv6_add_addr() keeps idev->addr_list
> ordered so global-scope addresses precede link-local ones
> regardless of configuration order.
I don't understand the point about configuration order. Only the
intra-scope order is determined by configuration order, no?
>
> Fix the comparison so the insertion pointer only advances past
> addresses that are at least as global as the new one:
>
> ifa->ifa_scope >= ifa1->ifa_scope
>
> This groups global-scope primary addresses ahead of link-scope
> primary addresses in in_dev->ifa_list, preserving insertion order
> within each scope group, and brings IPv4 address enumeration order
> in line with existing IPv6 behavior.
>
> Signed-off-by: kanman.wong <kanman.wong@dish.com>
> ---
> net/ipv4/devinet.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/devinet.c b/net/ipv4/devinet.c
> index a35b72662e43..056f2169c6a3 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/devinet.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/devinet.c
> @@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ static int __inet_insert_ifa(struct in_ifaddr
> *ifa, struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
>
> while (ifa1) {
> if (!(ifa1->ifa_flags & IFA_F_SECONDARY) &&
> - ifa->ifa_scope <= ifa1->ifa_scope)
> + ifa->ifa_scope >= ifa1->ifa_scope)
> last_primary = &ifa1->ifa_next;
> if (ifa1->ifa_mask == ifa->ifa_mask &&
> inet_ifa_match(ifa1->ifa_address, ifa)) {
The patch is whitespace-damaged.
>
> base-commit: ce6b4d3216b63f902bb8e9695ee6c10c83415f65
> --
> 2.51.0
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-21 9:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-20 18:16 [PATCH net-next 1/2] ipv4: devinet: list global scope addresses before link scope addresses Tim Wong
2026-07-20 18:21 ` [PATCH net-next 2/2] selftests: net: add test for IPv4 address scope ordering Tim Wong
2026-07-21 9:01 ` Ido Schimmel [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260721090114.GA2510713@shredder \
--to=idosch@nvidia.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kanman.wong@dish.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox