Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200901065758.1141786-1-brianvv@google.com> <CANn89iKA5Ut4AcZfsZi3bVpE33_pqgO=E1RhBzePUeBDn6gznQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <52832405-fa37-38fb-b8fb-d7bd7a0d1d52@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52832405-fa37-38fb-b8fb-d7bd7a0d1d52@gmail.com>
From:   Brian Vazquez <brianvv@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 1 Sep 2020 08:50:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMzD94TmFiJRfgLp44z1GQ1zzg2Zy7o2Oa9GTTCed0kj5tLdLg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: ipv6: fix __rt6_purge_dflt_routers when forwarding
 is not set on all ifaces
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Brian Vazquez <brianvv.kernel@gmail.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsa@cumulusnetworks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hey David,

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 7:57 AM David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/1/20 1:56 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 8:58 AM Brian Vazquez <brianvv@google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The problem is exposed when the system has multiple ifaces and
> >> forwarding is enabled on a subset of them, __rt6_purge_dflt_routers will
> >> clean the default route on all the ifaces which is not desired.
> >>
> >> This patches fixes that by cleaning only the routes where the iface has
> >> forwarding enabled.
> >>
> >> Fixes: z ("net: ipv6: Fix processing of RAs in presence of VRF")
>
> are you sure that is a Fixes tag for this problem? looking at that
> change it only handles RA for tables beyond the main table; it does not
> change the logic of how many or which routes are purged.

That commit also added RT6_TABLE_HAS_DFLT_ROUTER so I thought that was
the commit needed to be mentioned. But probably it shouldn't?
Also Am I missing something or this is only called on on the sysctl path?

>
>
>