On Wed, 16 Oct 2013, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:27:47AM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > I don't know the IPv6 routing but if we find a way
> > to keep the desired nexthop in rt6i_gateway and to add
> > RTF_GATEWAY checks here and there such solution would be more
> > general. FLOWI_FLAG_KNOWN_NH flag can help, if needed.
> I thought about this yesterday but did not see an easy way. How does the IPv4
> implementation accomplish this?
In IPv4 rt->rt_flags has no bit to indicate if the route
is via gateway (like RTF_GATEWAY in IPv6). We added rt_uses_gateway
for this purpose.
In the default case, rt_gateway may contain 0 if we return
cached result, eg. when target is part of a local subnet.
Then IPVS/TEE/RAW can request valid rt_gateway, even with the price
of a cloned result, so that rt_gateway can remember the requested
nexthop which may differ from daddr.
> ipvs caches the dst in its own infrastructure, so we need to be sure we don't
> disconnect this dst from the ipv6 routing table, otherwise ip6_dst_check won't
> recognize when relookups should be done. Playing games with RTF_GATEWAY seems
> dangerous then.
dst_check works for IPVS. There is a problem only
with the recent changes that moved the indication for PMTU
change from dst_check to dst_mtu() calls. But this is safe
for IPVS, it handles FRAG_NEEDED for the tunneling mode itself.
Initially, I thought IPv6 stores zeroes in rt6i_gateway.
But now I see rt6_alloc_cow() to be called for the case I assumed
to fail - when no gateway is used.
So, I'll try to test the IPVS case in the following 1-2 days
and will report after adding some printks. If xt_TEE has
the same problem then it should not be IPVS-specific. RAW not
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html