From f49887cbe75da56dc8555d56c66daad78400b2b3 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.

(cherry picked from commit 4958aee4977f325be19f0e1e4b424922c3cada5f)
---
 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 961c1ab8ad..6257372ffd 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;