On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 03:37:48PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:32:04 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
> > On 12/3/20 8:06 PM, Stephen Suryaputra wrote:
> > > Depending on the order of the routes to fe80::/64 are installed on the
> > > VRF table, the NS for the source link-local address of the originator
> > > might be sent to the wrong interface.
> > >
> > > This patch ensures that packets with link-local addr source is doing a
> > > lookup with the orig_iif when the destination addr indicates that it
> > > is strict.
> > >
> > > Add the reproducer as a use case in self test script fcnal-test.sh.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Suryaputra <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/net/vrf.c | 10 ++-
> > > tools/testing/selftests/net/fcnal-test.sh | 95 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > Reviewed-by: David Ahern <[email protected]>
>
> Should I put something like:
>
> Fixes: b4869aa2f881 ("net: vrf: ipv6 support for local traffic to local
> addresses")
>
> on this?
I was conflicted when I was about to put Fixes tag on this patch because
it could either be b4869aa2f881 that you mentioned above, or 6f12fa7755301
("vrf: mark skb for multicast or link-local as enslaved to VRF"). So, I
decided not to put it, but may be I should so that this is qualified to
be queued to stable?
Thanks,
Stephen.
