On 8/18/17 5:15 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> 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.
That's asinine. The if_inet6 processing is just getting the 'lo'
interface index. Why scan the file looking for that? The ipv6_route
processing is assembling routes against the loopback device regardless
of what the route is. Do you know why - what the route list is used for?
If it matters, we could keep 'lo' as the device for RTF_LOCAL routes in
the proc files to keep backwards compatibility.
