From: Hangbin Liu liuhangbin@gmail.com
[ Upstream commit 8247a79efa2f28b44329f363272550c1738377de ]
When do IPv6 tunnel PMTU update and calls __ip6_rt_update_pmtu() in the end, we should not call dst_confirm_neigh() as there is no two-way communication.
Although vti and vti6 are immune to this problem because they are IFF_NOARP interfaces, as Guillaume pointed. There is still no sense to confirm neighbour here.
v5: Update commit description. v4: No change. v3: Do not remove dst_confirm_neigh, but add a new bool parameter in dst_ops.update_pmtu to control whether we should do neighbor confirm. Also split the big patch to small ones for each area. v2: Remove dst_confirm_neigh in __ip6_rt_update_pmtu.
Reviewed-by: Guillaume Nault gnault@redhat.com Acked-by: David Ahern dsahern@gmail.com Signed-off-by: Hangbin Liu liuhangbin@gmail.com Signed-off-by: David S. Miller davem@davemloft.net Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org --- net/ipv4/ip_vti.c | 2 +- net/ipv6/ip6_vti.c | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- a/net/ipv4/ip_vti.c +++ b/net/ipv4/ip_vti.c @@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ static netdev_tx_t vti_xmit(struct sk_bu
mtu = dst_mtu(dst); if (skb->len > mtu) { - skb_dst_update_pmtu(skb, mtu); + skb_dst_update_pmtu_no_confirm(skb, mtu); if (skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_IP)) { icmp_send(skb, ICMP_DEST_UNREACH, ICMP_FRAG_NEEDED, htonl(mtu)); --- a/net/ipv6/ip6_vti.c +++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_vti.c @@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ vti6_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct ne
mtu = dst_mtu(dst); if (skb->len > mtu) { - skb_dst_update_pmtu(skb, mtu); + skb_dst_update_pmtu_no_confirm(skb, mtu);
if (skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_IPV6)) { if (mtu < IPV6_MIN_MTU)