Re: Bug w/ (policy) routing

On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 09:48:12 -0700
David Ahern [off-list ref] wrote:

On 1/1/17 12:52 PM, Olivier Brunel wrote:

quoted

Indeed, if I first delete the rule for lookup local and recreate it
w/ higher prio than my "lookup 50", then no more issue.  

After the unshare or when creating a new network namespace, bringing
the lo device up will create the local table and the rest of the
commands will work properly. ie., instead of moving the local rule
you can run:

Indeed, and that's a much better solution for me, since I bring lo up
anyways, I might as well do it first. Thank you.

unshare -n bash

ip li set lo up
ip rule add table 50 prio 50
ip link add test type veth peer name test2
...

-----

Alex: 

The order of commands is influencing whether the unmerge succeeds or
not which is wrong. I took a quick look and I don't see a simple
solution to this. Effectively:

Adding a rule before bringing up any interface does not unmerge the
tables: $ unshare -n bash
$ ip rule add table 50 prio 50
$ ip li set lo up

In fib_unmerge(), fib_new_table(net, RT_TABLE_LOCAL) returns null.


Where the reverse order works:
$ unshare -n bash
$ ip li set lo up
$ ip rule add table 50 prio 50

David