On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:04:18 +0100 Daniel Bilik <d...@neosystem.org> wrote:
> A week ago I upgraded two systems where stf(4) is used. They were running > 10-stable from beginning of September, with stf working fine. After > upgrade, the address on stf0 stays "tentative" indefinitely. I've finally got some time to analyze this more thoroughly. And indeed, the problem was introduced with both r287734 (changes to in6if_do_dad() in sys/netinet6/in6.c) and r290348 (changes to nd6_timer() in sys/netinet6/nd6.c), specifically in combination with stf(4) interfaces not being marked "running". Attached patch fixes that. Should I create PR for this? -- Dan
--- sys/net/if_stf.c.orig 2016-01-12 22:45:07.876281000 +0100 +++ sys/net/if_stf.c 2016-01-12 22:16:30.233678410 +0100 @@ -818,6 +818,7 @@ stf_ioctl(ifp, cmd, data) ifa->ifa_rtrequest = stf_rtrequest; ifp->if_flags |= IFF_UP; + ifp->if_drv_flags |= IFF_DRV_RUNNING; break; case SIOCADDMULTI: --- sys/netinet6/in6.c.orig 2016-01-12 22:46:09.431221000 +0100 +++ sys/netinet6/in6.c 2016-01-12 22:11:22.173685329 +0100 @@ -2375,6 +2375,7 @@ in6if_do_dad(struct ifnet *ifp) case IFT_DUMMY: #endif case IFT_FAITH: + case IFT_STF: /* * These interfaces do not have the IFF_LOOPBACK flag, * but loop packets back. We do not have to do DAD on such
_______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"