diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'core/systemd/0001-networkd-properly-track-addresses-when-first-added.patch')
| -rw-r--r-- | core/systemd/0001-networkd-properly-track-addresses-when-first-added.patch | 104 |
1 files changed, 104 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/core/systemd/0001-networkd-properly-track-addresses-when-first-added.patch b/core/systemd/0001-networkd-properly-track-addresses-when-first-added.patch new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4f1af0741 --- /dev/null +++ b/core/systemd/0001-networkd-properly-track-addresses-when-first-added.patch @@ -0,0 +1,104 @@ +From 4958aee4977f325be19f0e1e4b424922c3cada5f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> +Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 22:47:51 +0200 +Subject: [PATCH] networkd: properly track addresses when first added + +When doing a NEWADDR, the reply we get back is the NEWADDR itself, rather +than just an empty ack (unlike how NEWLINK works). For this reason, the +process that did the NEWADDR does not get the broadcast message. + +We were only listening for broadcast messages, and hence not tracking the +addresses we added ourselves. This went unnoticed as the kernel will usually +send NEWADDR messages from time to time anyway, so things would mostly work, +but in the worst case we would not notice that a routable address was available +and consider ourselves offline. +--- + src/network/networkd-link.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- + 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) + +diff --git a/src/network/networkd-link.c b/src/network/networkd-link.c +index 961c1ab..6257372 100644 +--- a/src/network/networkd-link.c ++++ b/src/network/networkd-link.c +@@ -599,10 +599,35 @@ static int route_drop_handler(sd_rtnl *rtnl, sd_rtnl_message *m, void *userdata) + return 0; + } + ++static int link_get_address_handler(sd_rtnl *rtnl, sd_rtnl_message *m, void *userdata) { ++ _cleanup_link_unref_ Link *link = userdata; ++ int r; ++ ++ assert(rtnl); ++ assert(m); ++ assert(link); ++ assert(link->manager); ++ ++ for (; m; m = sd_rtnl_message_next(m)) { ++ r = sd_rtnl_message_get_errno(m); ++ if (r < 0) { ++ log_debug_link(link, "getting address failed: %s", strerror(-r)); ++ continue; ++ } ++ ++ r = link_rtnl_process_address(rtnl, m, link->manager); ++ if (r < 0) ++ log_warning_link(link, "could not process address: %s", strerror(-r)); ++ } ++ ++ return 1; ++} ++ + static int address_handler(sd_rtnl *rtnl, sd_rtnl_message *m, void *userdata) { + _cleanup_link_unref_ Link *link = userdata; + int r; + ++ assert(rtnl); + assert(m); + assert(link); + assert(link->ifname); +@@ -623,6 +648,11 @@ static int address_handler(sd_rtnl *rtnl, sd_rtnl_message *m, void *userdata) { + link->ifname, strerror(-r), + "ERRNO=%d", -r, + NULL); ++ if (r >= 0) { ++ /* calling handler directly so take a ref */ ++ link_ref(link); ++ link_get_address_handler(rtnl, m, link); ++ } + + if (link->addr_messages == 0) { + log_debug_link(link, "addresses set"); +@@ -2233,30 +2263,6 @@ int link_rtnl_process_address(sd_rtnl *rtnl, sd_rtnl_message *message, void *use + return 1; + } + +-static int link_get_address_handler(sd_rtnl *rtnl, sd_rtnl_message *m, void *userdata) { +- _cleanup_link_unref_ Link *link = userdata; +- int r; +- +- assert(rtnl); +- assert(m); +- assert(link); +- assert(link->manager); +- +- for (; m; m = sd_rtnl_message_next(m)) { +- r = sd_rtnl_message_get_errno(m); +- if (r < 0) { +- log_debug_link(link, "getting address failed: %s", strerror(-r)); +- continue; +- } +- +- r = link_rtnl_process_address(rtnl, m, link->manager); +- if (r < 0) +- log_warning_link(link, "could not process address: %s", strerror(-r)); +- } +- +- return 1; +-} +- + int link_add(Manager *m, sd_rtnl_message *message, Link **ret) { + Link *link; + _cleanup_rtnl_message_unref_ sd_rtnl_message *req = NULL; +-- +2.0.1 + |