On 8/18/17 6:05 PM, David Ahern wrote:
> On 8/18/17 5:15 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>> Hello David,
>>
>> David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> @@ -2688,15 +2716,9 @@ struct rt6_info *addrconf_dst_alloc(struct inet6_dev
>>> *idev,
>>> {
>>> u32 tb_id;
>>> struct net *net = dev_net(idev->dev);
>>> - struct net_device *dev = net->loopback_dev;
>>> + struct net_device *dev = idev->dev;
>>> struct rt6_info *rt;
>>>
>>> - /* use L3 Master device as loopback for host routes if device
>>> - * is enslaved and address is not link local or multicast
>>> - */
>>> - if (!rt6_need_strict(addr))
>>> - dev = l3mdev_master_dev_rcu(idev->dev) ? : dev;
>>> -
>>> rt = ip6_dst_alloc(net, dev, DST_NOCOUNT);
>>> if (!rt)
>>> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>
>> I am afraid this change might break Java:
>>
>> <http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/file/65464a307408/src/java.base/unix/native/libnet/net_util_md.c#l574>
>>
>> I am all in for this change, but maybe it might be necessary to mask
>> RTF_LOCAL routes with "lo" somehow.
>
> That's asinine. The if_inet6 processing is just getting the 'lo'
> interface index. Why scan the file looking for that? The ipv6_route
> processing is assembling routes against the loopback device regardless
> of what the route is. Do you know why - what the route list is used for?
If I read it correctly, seems to be a 2.4 workaround:
- only user of the route list is needsLoopbackRoute()
- only caller of needsLoopbackRoute is here:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/file/65464a307408/src/java.base/unix/native/libnet/net_util_md.c#l828
