From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexander Duyck Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: recreate ipv6 link-local addresses when increasing MTU over IPV6_MIN_MTU Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:52:29 -0700 Message-ID: <562E928D.2010407@gmail.com> References: <1445870205-27202-1-git-send-email-hannes@stressinduktion.org> <562E4C26.3030501@gmail.com> <1445877236.175039.420582401.131556D5@webmail.messagingengine.com> <9831.1445887009@famine> <1445892312.1018239.420827817.3EC76081@webmail.messagingengine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Hannes Frederic Sowa , Jay Vosburgh Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.220.50]:33340 "EHLO mail-pa0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751597AbbJZUwa (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Oct 2015 16:52:30 -0400 Received: by pabla5 with SMTP id la5so5349534pab.0 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 13:52:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1445892312.1018239.420827817.3EC76081@webmail.messagingengine.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/26/2015 01:45 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 20:16, Jay Vosburgh wrote: >> Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: >> >>> Hello Alex, >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015, at 16:52, Alexander Duyck wrote: >>>> Seems like this code isn't quite correct. You are calling ipv6_add_dev >>>> for slave devices, and if I understand things correctly I don't believe >>>> that was happening before and may be an unintended side effect. >>> Ah, btw., autoconf and ipv6 operation on IFF_SLAVE devices is actually >>> desired nowadays and don't think we can change this. See also: >>> >> IPv6 addrconf on IFF_SLAVE devices was disabled for bonding >> slaves in commit c2edacf80e15 because it caused issues with snooping >> switches. >> >> This is also referenced in >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=236750 >> >> Won't re-enabling autoconf on IFF_SLAVE devices cause that issue >> to return? > Both patches don't enable autoconf on IFF_SLAVE devices. Sorry for being > imprecise. The referred patch was changing the behavior to whether the > device had a master device. Yes, the IFF_SLAVE comment on my part was an error in interpretation of the code. > @Alex, I will take your patch and submit it with the necessary guards to > not enable ipv6 again if we forcefully disable ipv6 and later on shrink > and increase the MTU again. I will do so in your name. Thanks again for > the patch! No problem. If you want to you can take over authorship of the patch and just leave my signed-off-by on there. I'm good either way. - Alex