On 9/17/18 9:11 AM, Peter Oskolkov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 9:11 PM David Ahern <dsah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/13/18 1:38 PM, Peter Oskolkov wrote:
>>
>>> diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
>>> index 3eed045c65a5..a3902f805305 100644
>>> --- a/net/ipv6/route.c
>>> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
>>> @@ -946,7 +946,7 @@ static void ip6_rt_init_dst_reject(struct rt6_info *rt,
>>> struct fib6_info *ort)
>>>
>>> static void ip6_rt_init_dst(struct rt6_info *rt, struct fib6_info *ort)
>>> {
>>> - rt->dst.flags |= fib6_info_dst_flags(ort);
>>> + rt->dst.flags |= fib6_info_dst_flags(ort) & ~DST_NOCOUNT;
>>
>> I think my mistake is setting dst.flags in ip6_rt_init_dst. Flags
>> argument is passed to ip6_dst_alloc which is always invoked before
>> ip6_rt_copy_init is called which is the only caller of ip6_rt_init_dst.
>
> ip6_rt_cache_alloc calls ip6_dst_alloc with zero as flags; and only
> one flag is copied later (DST_HOST) outside of ip6_rt_init_dst().
> If the flag assignment is completely removed from ip6_rt_init_dst(),
> then DST_NOPOLICY flag will be lost.
>
> Which may be OK, but is more than what this patch tries to solve (do not
> copy DST_NOCOUNT flag).
After 5+ days mostly offline I just started looking at this problem.
Give me some time to chase down a thought I had from my last response.
