In article <20041108061529.GA1774@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Mon, 8 Nov 2004
17:15:29 +1100), Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> says:
> I'm reviewing the changes between 184.108.40.206 and 2.6.9. The following
> change caught my eye:
> # ChangeSet
> # 2004/08/17 11:25:16+09:00 yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> # [IPV6] refer inet6 device via corresponding local route from address
> In particular, it changed the handling of RTM_NEWADDR in ipv6_ifa_notify.
> Previously if you received duplicate RTM_NEWADDR notifications
> ip6_rt_addr_add would allocate a new rt and then free it since
> ip6_ins_rt would fail.
> With the new code, it will call ip6_ins_rt on the *same* rt
> again which will cause it to be dst_free'd. I don't see any
> way for this to lead to dst underflows yet, but it'll certainly
> corrupt the routing table since dst_free modifies rt->u.next.
> Now the question is is it possible to get dupliate RTM_NEWADDR
It used to (before
But, it does not happen now; RTM_NEWADDR notification is called
1. when we has successfully finished DAD
2. if the interface does not need DAD
We've tested simple (but including multiple multiple) up/down case.
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI @ USAGI Project <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
GPG FP: 9022 65EB 1ECF 3AD1 0BDF 80D8 4807 F894 E062 0EEA