[PATCH 1/2] interface-ip: copy more info for target host route

[Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca]

> > @@ -301,9 +301,26 @@ interface_ip_add_target_route(union if_addr *addr, bool v6, struct interface *if
> >       route->mask = v6 ? 128 : 32;
> >       memcpy(&route->addr, addr, addrsize);
> >       memcpy(&route->nexthop, &r_next->nexthop, sizeof(route->nexthop));
> > -     route->mtu = r_next->mtu;
> > -     route->metric = r_next->metric;
> > -     route->table = r_next->table;
> > +     if (r_next->flags & DEVROUTE_MTU) {
> > +             route->mtu = r_next->mtu;
> > +             route->flags |= DEVROUTE_MTU;
> > +     }
> > +     if (r_next->flags & DEVROUTE_METRIC) {
> > +             route->metric = r_next->metric;
> > +             route->flags |= DEVROUTE_METRIC;
> > +     }
> > +     if (r_next->flags & DEVROUTE_TABLE) {
> > +             route->table = r_next->table;
> > +             route->flags |= DEVROUTE_TABLE;
> > +     }
> > +     if (r_next->flags & DEVROUTE_TYPE) {
> > +             route->type = r_next->type;
> > +             route->flags |= DEVROUTE_TYPE;
> > +     }
> > +     if (r_next->flags & DEVROUTE_ONLINK)
> > +             route->flags |= DEVROUTE_ONLINK;
> How about leaving the route->{mtu,metric,table} assignment as-is and
> doing something like this:
>         route->flags |= r->next & (DEVROUTE_MTU | DEVROUTE_METRIC |
>                                    DEVROUTE_TYPE | DEVROUTE_ONLINK);
>

Sure. I'll resent as the code bellow after your ACK.

I noticed that metric was being added to the OS route even though
DEVROUTE_METRIC
was never set. The same might also happen with mtu and table (however,
I didn't test it). You didn't mention
DEVROUTE_TABLE in your suggestion but I added it anyway. I think that, in fact,
table will never be used as interface_ip_find_route_target() will
ignore routes with the table flag.
Should I remove it, both the flag and the assignment, or it is not worth it?

I added source/mask even without using it in my case as I think a new
route without it would break the
original route proposal.

It is still missing "valid_until" but I'm not sure if it should be
added or not as it might get out of sync with
the original route if that one gets updated.

@@ -298,12 +300,17 @@ interface_ip_add_target_route(union if_addr
*addr, bool v6, struct interface *if
               return NULL;

       route->flags = v6 ? DEVADDR_INET6 : DEVADDR_INET4;
+       route->flags |= r->next & (DEVROUTE_MTU | DEVROUTE_METRIC |
+                       DEVROUTE_TYPE | DEVROUTE_ONLINK | DEVROUTE_TABLE);
       route->mask = v6 ? 128 : 32;
       memcpy(&route->addr, addr, addrsize);
       memcpy(&route->nexthop, &r_next->nexthop, sizeof(route->nexthop));
       route->mtu = r_next->mtu;
       route->metric = r_next->metric;
       route->table = r_next->table;
+       route->type = r_next->type;
+       memcpy(&route->source, &r_next->source, addrsize);
+       route->sourcemask = r_next->sourcemask;
       route->iface = iface;
       vlist_add(&iface->host_routes, &route->node, route);