On 11/9/16 7:48 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Ahern
> Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 14:50:31 -0800
>
>> Lorenzo noted an Android unit test failed due to commit e0d56fdd7342:
>> "The expectation in the test was that the RST replying to a SYN sent to a
>> closed port should be generated with o
From: David Ahern
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 14:50:31 -0800
> Lorenzo noted an Android unit test failed due to commit e0d56fdd7342:
> "The expectation in the test was that the RST replying to a SYN sent to a
> closed port should be generated with oif=0. In other words it should not
> prefer the
On 11/8/16 11:38 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 7:50 AM, David Ahern wrote:
>> @@ -1577,7 +1577,8 @@ void ip_send_unicast_reply(struct sock *sk, struct
>> sk_buff *skb,
>
> Tested-by: Lorenzo Colitti
>
> This fixes the IPv4 test, thanks. I notice that 4.8 didn't have
> e0d
On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 7:50 AM, David Ahern wrote:
> @@ -1577,7 +1577,8 @@ void ip_send_unicast_reply(struct sock *sk, struct
> sk_buff *skb,
Tested-by: Lorenzo Colitti
This fixes the IPv4 test, thanks. I notice that 4.8 didn't have
e0d56fdd73, so if this patch can get into 4.9 then there will
Lorenzo noted an Android unit test failed due to commit e0d56fdd7342:
"The expectation in the test was that the RST replying to a SYN sent to a
closed port should be generated with oif=0. In other words it should not
prefer the interface where the SYN came in on, but instead should follow
w
