From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ipv6: fix route selection if kernel is not compiled with CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 17:59:04 +0200
Message-ID: <20130710155904.GI15411@order.stressinduktion.org>
References: <20130707173031.GC9625@order.stressinduktion.org> <20130709215701.GD9763@order.stressinduktion.org> <51DD1352.8000705@6wind.com> <51DD2959.9060206@6wind.com> <20130710105316.GA5735@order.stressinduktion.org> <51DD521F.1000905@6wind.com> <20130710132122.GD15411@order.stressinduktion.org> <51DD6B72.1050700@6wind.com> <20130710152001.GH15411@order.stressinduktion.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
To: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org,
	petrus.lt@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from s15338416.onlinehome-server.info ([87.106.68.36]:37160 "EHLO
	order.stressinduktion.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754756Ab3GJP7G (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:59:06 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130710152001.GH15411@order.stressinduktion.org>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 05:20:01PM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 04:10:58PM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> > Le 10/07/2013 15:21, Hannes Frederic Sowa a =C3=A9crit :
> > >On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 02:22:55PM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> > >>Le 10/07/2013 12:53, Hannes Frederic Sowa a =C3=A9crit :
> > >The route with rt6i_gateway does actually expire because I got it =
from
> > >autoconf and ip -6 r l confirms this, too. It seems this is only t=
he cached
> > >route (I will confirm shortly). Is this still ok?
> > I wonder why expires is 0. Even if this route is cached, the flag=20
> > RTF_EXPIRES should be set. Am I wrong?
>=20
> It seems it is possible cached route gets its expiration updated. As
> such it is not counted in the iteration but it is found as a sibling =
and its
> nsiblings count is updated again.

ip6_link_failure is the problem. We need to remove the route directly i=
nstead
of calling rt6_update_expires:

static void ip6_link_failure(struct sk_buff *skb)
{
        struct rt6_info *rt;

        icmpv6_send(skb, ICMPV6_DEST_UNREACH, ICMPV6_ADDR_UNREACH, 0);

        rt =3D (struct rt6_info *) skb_dst(skb);
        if (rt) {
                if (rt->rt6i_flags & RTF_CACHE)
                        rt6_update_expires(rt, 0);
                else if (rt->rt6i_node && (rt->rt6i_flags & RTF_DEFAULT=
))
                        rt->rt6i_node->fn_sernum =3D -1;
        }
}

Thanks,

  Hannes