On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 13:54:16 +0100 Guillaume Nault wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 01:17:16PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 10:03:42 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
> > > On 11/26/20 11:09 AM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> > > > When inet_rtm_getroute() was converted to use the RCU
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 01:17:16PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 10:03:42 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
> > On 11/26/20 11:09 AM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> > > When inet_rtm_getroute() was converted to use the RCU variants of
> > > ip_route_input() and ip_route_output_key(), the TOS
On 11/26/20 11:09 AM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> When inet_rtm_getroute() was converted to use the RCU variants of
> ip_route_input() and ip_route_output_key(), the TOS parameters
> stopped being masked with IPTOS_RT_MASK before doing the route lookup.
>
> As a result, "ip route get" can return a di
On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 10:03:42 -0700 David Ahern wrote:
> On 11/26/20 11:09 AM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> > When inet_rtm_getroute() was converted to use the RCU variants of
> > ip_route_input() and ip_route_output_key(), the TOS parameters
> > stopped being masked with IPTOS_RT_MASK before doing the
When inet_rtm_getroute() was converted to use the RCU variants of
ip_route_input() and ip_route_output_key(), the TOS parameters
stopped being masked with IPTOS_RT_MASK before doing the route lookup.
As a result, "ip route get" can return a different route than what
would be used when sending real
