Em 12-08-2013 19:26, Hannes Frederic Sowa escreveu:

Hi Marcelo!

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 03:09:19PM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:

quoted

Hannes, would something like this be acceptable? I'm hoping it's not too
ugly/hacky... as far as I could track back, input and output routines were
merged mainly due code similarity.

Your idea seems sound and I don't think it is very ugly or hacky. It's
as minimal as a stable-only patch should be. But we could simplify the
logic a bit. ;) See below.

quoted

TPROXY scenario needs to not create this neighbor entries on INPUT path,
while Debabrata ping test needs it on OUTPUT path. This patch limits my
previous patch to INPUT only then.

Yes, agreed. I don't see anything which could break because of this patch.
So I would go with it.

quoted

Initial testing here seems good, TPROXY seems to be working as expected and
also the ping6 test.

What do you think?

Aye Hannes, thanks! I'll rework the patch based on your points, do some more 
testings in here and post it probably only by tomorrow.

Thanks!
Marcelo

quoted

diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
index 18ea73c..603f9d9 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/route.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/route.c

@@ -791,7 +791,7 @@ static struct rt6_info *rt6_alloc_clone(struct rt6_info *ort,
  }

  static struct rt6_info *ip6_pol_route(struct net *net, struct fib6_table *table, int oif,
-				      struct flowi6 *fl6, int flags)
+				      struct flowi6 *fl6, int flags, int output)

								     bool input

quoted

  {
  	struct fib6_node *fn;
  	struct rt6_info *rt, *nrt;

@@ -799,8 +799,11 @@ static struct rt6_info *ip6_pol_route(struct net *net, struct fib6_table *table,
  	int attempts = 3;
  	int err;
  	int reachable = net->ipv6.devconf_all->forwarding ? 0 : RT6_LOOKUP_F_REACHABLE;
+	int local = RTF_NONEXTHOP;

  	strict |= flags & RT6_LOOKUP_F_IFACE;
+	if (!output)
+			local |= RTF_LOCAL;

	if (input)
			local |= RTF_LOCAL;

quoted

  relookup:
  	read_lock_bh(&table->tb6_lock);

@@ -820,7 +823,7 @@ restart:
  	read_unlock_bh(&table->tb6_lock);

  	if (!dst_get_neighbour_raw(&rt->dst)
-	    && !(rt->rt6i_flags & (RTF_NONEXTHOP | RTF_LOCAL)))
+	    && !(rt->rt6i_flags & local))
  		nrt = rt6_alloc_cow(rt, &fl6->daddr, &fl6->saddr);
  	else if (!(rt->dst.flags & DST_HOST))
  		nrt = rt6_alloc_clone(rt, &fl6->daddr);

@@ -864,7 +867,7 @@ out2:
  static struct rt6_info *ip6_pol_route_input(struct net *net, struct fib6_table *table,
  					    struct flowi6 *fl6, int flags)
  {
-	return ip6_pol_route(net, table, fl6->flowi6_iif, fl6, flags);
+	return ip6_pol_route(net, table, fl6->flowi6_iif, fl6, flags, 0);

								      true);

quoted

  }

  void ip6_route_input(struct sk_buff *skb)

@@ -890,7 +893,7 @@ void ip6_route_input(struct sk_buff *skb)
  static struct rt6_info *ip6_pol_route_output(struct net *net, struct fib6_table *table,
  					     struct flowi6 *fl6, int flags)
  {
-	return ip6_pol_route(net, table, fl6->flowi6_oif, fl6, flags);
+	return ip6_pol_route(net, table, fl6->flowi6_oif, fl6, flags, 1);

								      false);

quoted

  }

  struct dst_entry * ip6_route_output(struct net *net, const struct sock *sk,

Thanks,

   Hannes