Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190924073615.31704-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <20190924.145257.2013712373872209531.davem@davemloft.net>
 <CAHmME9oqRg9L+wdhOra=UO3ypuy9N82DHVrbDJDgLpxSmS-rHQ@mail.gmail.com> <20190924.153008.1663682877890370513.davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20190924.153008.1663682877890370513.davem@davemloft.net>
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Date:   Tue, 24 Sep 2019 15:49:59 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHmME9oL7qP=pGnXRT1hmPmRpQ1_0r__vHkuBe-LbfgZTEMV_g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6: do not free rt if FIB_LOOKUP_NOREF is set on
 suppress rule
To:     David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc:     Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, stable@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 3:30 PM David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote
> I'm asking you to make a non-wireguard test that triggers the problem.
Oh, gotcha. No problem.

>
> Or would you like a situation you're interested in to break from time
> to time.
My test suite should catch it in the future now that it's there, so I'm fine.

> Jason, please don't be difficult about this and write a proper test
> case just like I would ask anyone else fixing bugs like this to write.
I'm not being difficult. I just thought you didn't see what the test
case I linked to actually was. I have no qualms about reimplementing
it with the dummy interface, for a v2 of this patch. Coming your way
shortly.