From: David Ahern <d...@cumulusnetworks.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:23:51 -0800
> From: David Lamparter <equi...@diac24.net>
>
> When selecting an address in context of a VRF, the vrf master should be
> preferred for address selection. If it isn't, the user has a hard time
> getting the system to select to their preference - the code will pick
> the address off the first in-VRF interface it can find, which on a
> router could well be a non-routable address.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Lamparter <equi...@diac24.net>
> Signed-off-by: David Ahern <d...@cumulusnetworks.com>
> [dsa: Fixed comment style ]
> ---
> v2
> - Fixed comment per Dave's response
>
> net/ipv4/devinet.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/devinet.c b/net/ipv4/devinet.c
> index 614904c29cbd..01119fbf3b30 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/devinet.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/devinet.c
> @@ -1217,6 +1217,24 @@ __be32 inet_select_addr(const struct net_device *dev,
> __be32 dst, int scope)
> no_in_dev:
> master_idx = l3mdev_master_ifindex_rcu(dev);
>
> + /* For VRFs, the VRF device takes the place of the loopback device,
> + * with addresses on it being preferred. Note in such cases the
> + * loopback device will be among the devices that fail the master_idx
> + * equality check in the loop below.
> + */
> + if (master_idx &&
> + (dev = dev_get_by_index_rcu(net, master_idx)) &&
> + (in_dev = __in_dev_get_rcu(dev))) {
> +
> + for_primary_ifa(in_dev) {
Please get rid of this empty line, and resubmit this series with a proper
"0/N" header posting explaining the high level purpose of this patch
series and what it is doing.
Thanks.
