> I think the backport just needs to add a check to not flow through to setting the
> routes until after we've gone through the process of setting the addresses; we
> can do that with the attached patch
yeah, maybe, I was thinking more along the lines of needing c42ff3a1a7bfea66dc4655096c79bd481159091b and maybe e4a71bf36f422c3728b902aaa5846add7bbc0eb9, and we might also need 2428613f854f46b6624199c2dc58d02617320133 to actually initialize our flags to false.
In short, the backport is much more complex than a quick patch; even if a 1-liner really is all that's needed, I need to look *very* closely at all 4 patches from bug 1812760 to make 100% that's the case.
Hence, removing those patches from the current systemd upload, which will fix this bug. Then, I can take more time in the original bug to evaluate the patches.
> I think the backport just needs to add a check to not flow through to setting the
> routes until after we've gone through the process of setting the addresses; we
> can do that with the attached patch
yeah, maybe, I was thinking more along the lines of needing c42ff3a1a7bfea6 6dc4655096c79bd 481159091b and maybe e4a71bf36f422c3 728b902aaa5846a dd7bbc0eb9, and we might also need 2428613f854f46b 6624199c2dc58d0 2617320133 to actually initialize our flags to false.
In short, the backport is much more complex than a quick patch; even if a 1-liner really is all that's needed, I need to look *very* closely at all 4 patches from bug 1812760 to make 100% that's the case.
Hence, removing those patches from the current systemd upload, which will fix this bug. Then, I can take more time in the original bug to evaluate the patches.