On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:57:43PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 8:09 PM, Hangbin Liu <liuhang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do we still need this net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry check? How about remove all
> > the checks?
>
> I believe you only need to check for rt->dst.error, no need to check against
> NULL or ip6_null_entry.
>
> Take a look at other ip6_route_lookup() callers.
Yes, I saw it. That why I send v2 patch to check both rt->dst.error and
ip6_null_entry.
The question is the other two caller are rpfilter_lookup_reverse6() and
nft_fib6_eval(). From the code it looks these two caller only care about
device match.
if (rt->rt6i_idev->dev == dev || (flags & XT_RPFILTER_LOOSE))
ret = true;
And the device would be lo if it is ip6_null_entry. So they just discard it.
I'm not familiar with netfilter, Please correct me if I make any mistake.
But what we want in inet6_rtm_getroute() and rt6_dump_route() is to
get/dump the route info. So we should get the info even it's unreachable or
prohibit.
That's why I think we should remove both rt->dst.error and ip6_null_entry
check in inet6_rtm_getroute(). And even further, remove the ip6_null_entry
check in rt6_dump_route().
What do you think?
Thanks
Hangbin
