On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 20:56:36 -0600 David Ahern wrote:
> 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.
Just saying.. if Vincent had the time to clean them all up _carefully_,
it'd be less likely we'll see another one added through copy & paste :)
