On 10/19/20 6:53 PM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 14:50:11 +0200 Vincent Bernat wrote:
>> Introduced in 0eeb075fad73, the "ignore_routes_with_linkdown" sysctl
>> ignores a route whose interface is down. It is provided as a
>> per-interface sysctl. However, while a "all" variant is exposed, it
>> was a noop since it was never evaluated. We use the usual "or" logic
>> for this kind of sysctls.
>
>> Without this patch, the two last lines would fail on H1 (the one using
>> the "all" sysctl). With the patch, everything succeeds as expected.
>>
>> Also document the sysctl in `ip-sysctl.rst`.
>>
>> Fixes: 0eeb075fad73 ("net: ipv4 sysctl option to ignore routes when nexthop
>> link is down")
>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Bernat <vinc...@bernat.ch>
>
> I'm not hearing any objections, but I have two questions:
> - do you intend to merge it for 5.10 or 5.11? Because it has a fixes
> tag, yet it's marked for net-next. If we put it in 5.10 it may get
> pulled into stable immediately, knowing how things work lately.
> - we have other sysctls that use IN_DEV_CONF_GET(),
> e.g. "proxy_arp_pvlan" should those also be converted?
>
The inconsistency with 'all' has been a major pain. In this case, I
think it makes sense. Blindly changing all of them I suspect will lead
to trouble. It is something reviewers should keep an eye on as sysctl
settings get added.
