Ok, thanks for testing, I'll send out an updated patch, with the caveat
there still might be a DCCP regression, see below.
Isn't AF_INET6, OK.
The actual setsockopt() call, OK.
This are all in link-local or multicast code, caller passing-in scopeid,
would trigger rt6_need_strict() regardless, so are OK.
SCTP peeling-off a socket, cloning parent, OK.
IPv4, shouldn't be affected by an IPv6 route change, OK.
This is the only mystery in this list. Looks like the DCCP accept()
codepath, and it's getting bound to the interface the request was
received on. I'm not sure if the intention here was to force this
strict behavior or not.
In link-local code, caller passing-in scopeid, would trigger
rt6_need_strict() regardless, so OK.
-Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html