On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:44:15AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> If the kernel tries to create (cloned) an ARP entry and found an
> existing conflicting route, do not try to be clever and just bail.
>
> I'm fine with rtalloc(9) taking the KERNEL_LOCK when cloning an entry
> but I'd prefer the ARP layer to not try to delete anything in the hot
> path.
>
> If you entered a conflicting entry in your routing table, that's your
> problem, you deal with it.
>
> Ok?
OK claudio@
> Index: netinet/if_ether.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/netinet/if_ether.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.191
> diff -u -p -r1.191 if_ether.c
> --- netinet/if_ether.c 1 Dec 2015 12:22:18 -0000 1.191
> +++ netinet/if_ether.c 2 Dec 2015 08:40:13 -0000
> @@ -707,12 +707,9 @@ arplookup(u_int32_t addr, int create, in
> flags = (create) ? (RT_REPORT|RT_RESOLVE) : 0;
>
> rt = rtalloc((struct sockaddr *)&sin, flags, tableid);
> - if (rt == NULL)
> - return (NULL);
> - if ((rt->rt_flags & RTF_GATEWAY) || (rt->rt_flags & RTF_LLINFO) == 0 ||
> + if (!rtisvalid(rt) || ISSET(rt->rt_flags, RTF_GATEWAY) ||
> + !ISSET(rt->rt_flags, RTF_LLINFO) ||
> rt->rt_gateway->sa_family != AF_LINK) {
> - if (create && (rt->rt_flags & RTF_CLONED))
> - rtdeletemsg(rt, tableid);
> rtfree(rt);
> return (NULL);
> }
>
--
:wq Claudio
