On 9/16/16 1:15 PM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>> diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
>> index ad4a7ff301fc..48bae2ee2e18 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv6/route.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
>> @@ -1991,9 +1991,19 @@ static struct rt6_info *ip6_route_info_create(struct
>> fib6_config *cfg)
>> if (!(gwa_type & IPV6_ADDR_UNICAST))
>> goto out;
>>
>> - if (cfg->fc_table)
>> + if (cfg->fc_table) {
>> grt = ip6_nh_lookup_table(net, cfg, gw_addr);
>>
>> + /* a nexthop lookup can not go through a gw.
>> + * if this happens on a table based lookup
>> + * then fallback to a full lookup
>> + */
>> + if (grt && grt->rt6i_flags & RTF_GATEWAY) {
>> + ip6_rt_put(grt);
>> + grt = NULL;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> if (!grt)
>> grt = rt6_lookup(net, gw_addr, NULL,
>> cfg->fc_ifindex, 1);
>
> OK. Should the dev check be dismissed or do we add "dev && dev !=
> grt->dst.dev" just as a safety net (this would be a convulated setup,
> but the correct direct route could be in an ip rule with higher priority
> while the one in this table is incorrect)?
>
yes. So the validity check becomes:
grt = ip6_nh_lookup_table(net, cfg, gw_addr);
if (grt) {
if (grt->rt6i_flags & RTF_GATEWAY ||
dev && dev != grt->dst.dev) {
ip6_rt_put(grt);
grt = NULL; <---- causes the full rt6_lookup
}
}