On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 09:47:33 +0100 Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06-12-2007 09:14, Mitsuru Chinen wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:49:47 +0100 > > Jarek Poplawski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On 06-12-2007 07:31, Mitsuru Chinen wrote: > >>> IPv4 stack doesn't reply any ICMP destination unreachable message > >>> with net unreachable code when IP detagrams are being discarded > >>> because of no route could be found in the forwarding path. > >>> Incidentally, IPv6 stack replies such ICMPv6 message in the similar > >>> situation. > ... > >> This patch seems to be wrong. It overrides err codes from > >> fib_lookup, where such decisions should be made. > > > > fib_lookup() replies -ESRCH in this situation. > > It is necessary to override the variable by the suitable error > > number like the code under e_hostunreach label. > > Probably I miss something, but I can't see how can you be sure it's > only -ESRCH possible here? Isn't opt->action() in fib_rules_lookup() > supposed to return this -ENETUNREACH when needed? Oh, excuse me. I did mistake. fib_rules_lookup() replies -ESRCH when no route is found. The case it replies -ENETUNREACH is that user adds unreachable route. However, if the err value is override with no check, a blackhole or prohibit route is treated as a unreachable route. As the patch is already applied, I will send another patch to add a check for it. Thank you very much for pointing out the issue! Best Regards, ---- Mitsuru Chinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
