Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:30:21 +0100 From: Oliver Pinter <oliver.pinter@hardenedbsd.org> To: Daniel Bilik <ddb@neosystem.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, hrs <hrs@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: stf(4) on 10-stable Message-ID: <CAPQ4fftywocmARQGNNSuEOxLSK0c5ordhDEjsHGPA%2B=cYp6Gug@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20160113091730.381f94e94fa5cb2b90960111@neosystem.cz> References: <20151216170418.3c2ec09dfb87e9d09a026efd@neosystem.cz> <20160113091730.381f94e94fa5cb2b90960111@neosystem.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Added hrs@ to CC. On 1/13/16, Daniel Bilik <ddb@neosystem.org> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 17:04:18 +0100 > Daniel Bilik <ddb@neosystem.org> wrote: > >> A week ago I upgraded two systems where stf(4) is used. They were running >> 10-stable from beginning of September, with stf working fine. After >> upgrade, the address on stf0 stays "tentative" indefinitely. > > I've finally got some time to analyze this more thoroughly. And indeed, > the problem was introduced with both r287734 (changes to in6if_do_dad() in > sys/netinet6/in6.c) and r290348 (changes to nd6_timer() in > sys/netinet6/nd6.c), specifically in combination with stf(4) interfaces not > being > marked "running". Attached patch fixes that. Should I create PR for this? > > -- > Dan >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPQ4fftywocmARQGNNSuEOxLSK0c5ordhDEjsHGPA%2B=cYp6Gug>