From 6e7eddecaae58147806b3e04472fd4d90d8efcc0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yu Watanabe Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2025 09:14:51 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] network/routing-policy-rule: fix compare func Previously, when comparing an existing and requested routing policy rules, `all` flag was unset, thus the from and to addresses in the two rules were not compared. Hence, a new request with from and/or to addresses might be considered as it already exists even the addresses of existing one were different from the newly requested one. All existing rules have valid family, i.e. AF_INET or AF_INET6. And, all requesting rules with from and/or to addresses also have a valid family. Hence, even `all` flag is unset, the addresses can be and must be compared in that case. Fixes a regression caused by fc58350aa464cd2414b6fe9fec089412120c7d52 (v257). Fixes #35874. (cherry picked from commit bc45d9c9592d3fcd24894199be1902704f48d62c) --- src/network/networkd-routing-policy-rule.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/network/networkd-routing-policy-rule.c b/src/network/networkd-routing-policy-rule.c index 1a04af6359..1075f68e7d 100644 --- a/src/network/networkd-routing-policy-rule.c +++ b/src/network/networkd-routing-policy-rule.c @@ -318,7 +318,7 @@ static int routing_policy_rule_compare_func_full(const RoutingPolicyRule *a, con if (r != 0) return r; - if (all) { + if (a->family == b->family && a->family != AF_UNSPEC) { r = memcmp(&a->from.address, &b->from.address, FAMILY_ADDRESS_SIZE(a->family)); if (r != 0) return r;