From: zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@gmail.com>
To: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
ebiederm@xmission.com, ja@ssi.bg, "Yang,
Zhangle (Eric)" <Zhangle.Yang@windriver.com>,
"Tao, Yue" <Yue.Tao@windriver.com>,
"Zadoyan, Grant" <Grant.Zadoyan@windriver.com>,
eric.dumazet@gmail.com, socketcan@hartkopp.net,
hannes@stressinduktion.org, cwang@twopensource.com,
zhuyj <zyjzyj2000@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry?
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 17:15:48 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5347B2C4.6040103@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <534654FE.3040804@gmail.com>
Hi, all
Please help to look at this problem. And give us an official
explanation. Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that
routing entry?
Thanks a lot.
Zhu Yanjun
On 04/10/2014 04:23 PM, zhuyj wrote:
> Hi, David
>
> With ubuntu 12.04, I run the following to reproduce this defect.
>
> 1) Configure an interface
> ifconfig eth1 150.0.0.1/24 up
>
> 2) Add routing entry via that interface address
> route add -net 200.0.0.0/24 gw 150.0.0.1
>
> 3) Change the ip address on that interface as shown below.
> ifconfig eth1 151.0.0.1/24 up
>
> 4) Check netlink messages with "ip monitor all". There is no route
> delete netlink message.
>
> [ADDR]Deleted 3: eth1 inet 150.0.0.1/24 brd 150.0.0.255 scope
> global eth1
> [ROUTE]Deleted 150.0.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src
> 150.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 150.0.0.255 dev eth1 table local proto
> kernel scope link src 150.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 150.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto
> kernel scope link src 150.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]Deleted local 150.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel
> scope host src 150.0.0.1
> [NEIGH]224.0.0.251 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:fb NOARP
> [NEIGH]224.0.0.22 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:16 NOARP
> [ADDR]3: eth1 inet 151.0.0.1/16 brd 151.0.255.255 scope global eth1
> [ROUTE]local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope
> host src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.255.255 dev eth1 table local proto kernel
> scope link src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]151.0.0.0/16 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope
> link src 151.0.0.1
> [ADDR]Deleted 3: eth1 inet 151.0.0.1/16 brd 151.0.255.255 scope
> global eth1
> [ROUTE]Deleted 151.0.0.0/16 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src
> 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 151.0.255.255 dev eth1 table local proto
> kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]Deleted broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto
> kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]Deleted local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel
> scope host src 151.0.0.1
> [NEIGH]224.0.0.22 dev eth1 lladdr 01:00:5e:00:00:16 NOARP
> [ADDR]3: eth1 inet 151.0.0.1/24 brd 151.0.0.255 scope global eth1
> [ROUTE]local 151.0.0.1 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope
> host src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.255 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope
> link src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]151.0.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 151.0.0.1
> [ROUTE]broadcast 151.0.0.0 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope
> link src 151.0.0.1
>
> There is no netlink message to notify that 200.0.0.0/24 is deleted.
> But in fact, this 200.0.0.0/24 route item disappears.
>
> I checked the source code, and I found the following is the process to
> delete static routes when the attached interface is deleted.
>
> 1) | fib_netdev_event() {
> 1) | fib_disable_ip() {
> 1) 1.284 us | fib_sync_down_dev();
> 1) | fib_flush() {
> 1) | fib_table_flush() {
> 1) 0.129 us | fib_release_info();
> 1) 0.351 us | fib_release_info();
> 1) 4.605 us | }
> 1) | fib_table_flush() {
> 1) 0.096 us | fib_release_info();
> 1) 0.255 us | fib_release_info();
> 1) 4.770 us | }
> 1) + 11.787 us | }
> 1) ! 315.273 us | }
> 1) ! 315.888 us | }
>
> But there is no netlink message sent here.
>
> Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that 200.0.0.0/24
> routing entry?
>
> Best Regards!
> Zhu Yanjun
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-11 9:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-10 8:23 Should linux send netlink message as it is deleting that routing entry? zhuyj
2014-04-11 9:15 ` zhuyj [this message]
2014-04-11 18:30 ` Stephen Hemminger
2014-04-16 10:50 ` zhuyj
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=5347B2C4.6040103@gmail.com \
--to=zyjzyj2000@gmail.com \
--cc=Grant.Zadoyan@windriver.com \
--cc=Yue.Tao@windriver.com \
--cc=Zhangle.Yang@windriver.com \
--cc=cwang@twopensource.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=hannes@stressinduktion.org \
--cc=ja@ssi.bg \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=socketcan@hartkopp.net \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).