Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:23:52 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Zang MingJie <zealot0630@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@gmail.com>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] net/ipv4: inconsistent routing table
Message-ID: <20150812082352.56075327@urahara>
In-Reply-To: <CAOrge3pTg8qOzrNDBtNYB+UUKVmJKe-T+azrCqdrkt=T+HL0Tg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOrge3qi=7YPRO+VeCDvHsm_7SFC4Y=+JpwQtwAV3zk_q4fEAw@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C1D207.3040905@iogearbox.net>
	<55C24BAE.7090702@gmail.com>
	<CAOrge3ps456Zw8nnnVitU3t6sEQ=Z=6QzO5Zsp4s17MhhZxyKQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C3B8C8.9030507@redhat.com>
	<CAOrge3oRWUfdMjDgH8PSY_5Y8=KKv2Cr9T3ZLXvuNx6_eq7g0Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<55C4D803.3090108@redhat.com>
	<878u9njaon.fsf@stressinduktion.org>
	<CAOrge3qxOb_XrspuvYjV0pDDxUUoqGE3690KUQGoxZMxuD-NRQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOrge3q16PRh3TEBaGUeYDhLzWhCCytn+sopTzBr_23cj1gmaw@mail.gmail.com>
	<878u9jijuc.fsf@stressinduktion.org>
	<CAOrge3pSQ7eck14biTncjOyGD-DKY0DvRr7JKpS3BowoSDry-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<87y4hjgy6p.fsf@stressinduktion.org>
	<55CA608B.1070302@gmail.com>
	<CAOrge3pTg8qOzrNDBtNYB+UUKVmJKe-T+azrCqdrkt=T+HL0Tg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2478
Lines: 62

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:14:33 +0800
Zang MingJie <zealot0630@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:52 AM, Alexander Duyck
> <alexander.duyck@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 08/10/2015 04:50 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Zang MingJie <zealot0630@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> Here comes several options:
> >>>
> >>> 1. reject local next hop w/ EINVAL
> >>> 2. delete route when local next hop removed
> >>
> >> Will also cause some people to complain.
> >>
> >>> 3. transition between RT_SCOPE_HOST amd RT_SCOPE_LINK
> >>
> >> I don't understand the scope transition. I know Alex mentioned it for
> >> the first time. Maybe he can explain?
> >
> >
> > If I am not mistaken part of the issue in terms of the behaviour being seen
> > is due to the fact that the nexthop scope is recorded only when the route is
> > added, and there is code in place in rt_set_nexthop which will only use the
> > gateway if the scope is RT_SCOPE_LINK.  So what we would probably need to do
> > is go through and audit any routes on a given interface every time an
> > address is added or removed and if the nh_gw is equal to the address added
> > or removed would would need to transition between RT_SCOPE_LINK and
> > RT_SCOPE_HOST since the gateway is transitioning between the local system
> > and somewhere on the other side of the link.
> >
> > The problem is that this would still be a behaviour change and there may be
> > somebody that has heartburn about it.
> 
> That's why I'm going to introduce a sysconf entry, with the entry
> unset, keep compatibility; with the entry set, fix the bug.
> 
> >
> >>> 4. document it
> >>
> >> I prefer that one :)
> >
> >
> > Yeah, me too.  The fact is things have worked this way up until now and I
> > suspect the reason why this hasn't been reported until now is simply because
> > in many cases it works since routes are usually updated if you are moving
> > the gateway onto the local system.

Most people doing any router use routing protocols suites like Quagga
or Bird which have a routing management daemon. This is the kind of change
that the routing services portion manages. When a route or interface change
is detected it updates the FIB based on the bigger RIB.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/