Hello,
On Wed, 30 May 2007, KOVACS Krisztian wrote:
> I'm just about to publish the next round of tproxy patches (with the
> routing code modifications completely removed), but this issue is still
> present.
>
> I've posted a few patches making omitting this check possible
> selectively back in March. Do those changes look acceptable?
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=117310979823297&w=3
Just a small note for now:
The code
'if (dev_out == NULL && !(oldflp->flags & FLOWI_FLAG_TRANSPARENT))'
can lead to problem in 'fl.oif = dev_out->ifindex;' if fl4_src is not
present.
Also, i'm not sure if FLOWI_FLAG_TRANSPARENT should cause
different values for flags to be cached many times. Users without this
flag get EINVAL when fl4_src is not configured, other failures are not
cached too. And as fl4_src is considered in both cases (both kinds of
callers get same path on success) we don't need changes except in
ip_route_output_slow()? By this way I hope we can avoid any possible
forking of cache entries just by different flags.
Then we can use some more generic name, only for the flowi flag,
eg. FLOWI_FLAG_ANYSRC or something better?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
