Hello David,
David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com> writes:
> @@ -2688,15 +2716,9 @@ struct rt6_info *addrconf_dst_alloc(struct inet6_dev
> *idev,
> {
> u32 tb_id;
> struct net *net = dev_net(idev->dev);
> - struct net_device *dev = net->loopback_dev;
> + struct net_device *dev = idev->dev;
> struct rt6_info *rt;
>
> - /* use L3 Master device as loopback for host routes if device
> - * is enslaved and address is not link local or multicast
> - */
> - if (!rt6_need_strict(addr))
> - dev = l3mdev_master_dev_rcu(idev->dev) ? : dev;
> -
> rt = ip6_dst_alloc(net, dev, DST_NOCOUNT);
> if (!rt)
> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
I am afraid this change might break Java:
<http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/jdk9/jdk/file/65464a307408/src/java.base/unix/native/libnet/net_util_md.c#l574>
I am all in for this change, but maybe it might be necessary to mask
RTF_LOCAL routes with "lo" somehow.
Bye,
Hannes
