On 6/20/19 1:02 PM, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> Same as my comment about IPv4, except that, for IPv6, distinction
> between skip and skip_in_node is strictly needed, but buckets and
> nexthops are traversed in the same order and 'sernum' changes don't
> affect that.
ok
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 08:24:22 -0600
David Ahern wrote:
> On 6/19/19 5:59 PM, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > + if (filter->dump_exceptions) {
> > + struct fib6_nh_exception_dump_walker w = { .dump = arg,
> > + .rt = rt,
> > +
On 6/19/19 5:59 PM, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> + if (filter->dump_exceptions) {
> + struct fib6_nh_exception_dump_walker w = { .dump = arg,
> +.rt = rt,
> +.flags = flags,
>
Since commit 2b760fcf5cfb ("ipv6: hook up exception table to store dst
cache"), route exceptions reside in a separate hash table, and won't be
found by walking the FIB, so they won't be dumped to userspace on a
RTM_GETROUTE message.
This causes 'ip -6 route list cache' and 'ip -6 route flush cache
