From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH] [IPV4] Fix secondary IP addresses after promotion Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 05:28:40 +0100 Message-ID: <436C34F8.3090903@trash.net> References: <20051104184633.GA16256@skull.piratehaven.org> <436BFE08.6030906@trash.net> <20051105010740.GR23537@postel.suug.ch> <436C090D.5020201@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Brian Pomerantz , 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: Thomas Graf In-Reply-To: <436C090D.5020201@trash.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Patrick McHardy wrote: > Thomas Graf wrote: > >> broadcast 10.0.0.0 proto kernel scope link src 10.0.0.2 local >> 10.0.0.2 proto kernel scope host src 10.0.0.2 broadcast 10.0.0.255 >> proto kernel scope link src 10.0.0.2 >> Local routes for 10.0.0.3 and 10.0.0.4 have disappeared _without_ >> any notification. >> >> I think the correct way to fix this is to prevent the deletion of >> the local routes, not just readding them. _If_ the deletion of them >> is intended, which I doubt, then at least notifications must be >> sent out. > > I agree, the routes should ideally not be deleted at all. The missing > notifications appear to be a different bug. Let me have another look .. The reason why all routes are deleted is because their prefered source addresses is the primary address. fn_flush_list should probably send the missing notifications for the deleted routes. Changing address promotion to not delete the other routes at all looks extremly complicated, I think just fixing it to behave correctly is good enough (which my patch didn't do entirely, I'll send a new one this weekend).