)]}'
{
  "commit": "72331bc0cd072c3f4b670cd1256e47681fc53b80",
  "tree": "46665ad2830342d94b4d784c5aa397e3a6f0045b",
  "parents": [
    "cdaf0b835df04177397b90214f8b457fd23b67e0"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "Shmulik Ladkani",
    "email": "shmulik.ladkani@gmail.com",
    "time": "Sun Apr 01 04:03:45 2012 +0000"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "David S. Miller",
    "email": "davem@davemloft.net",
    "time": "Sun Apr 01 17:29:40 2012 -0400"
  },
  "message": "ipv6: Fix RTM_GETROUTE\u0027s interpretation of RTA_IIF to be consistent with ipv4\n\nIn IPv4, if an RTA_IIF attribute is specified within an RTM_GETROUTE\nmessage, then a route is searched as if a packet was received on the\nspecified \u0027iif\u0027 interface.\n\nHowever in IPv6, RTA_IIF is not interpreted in the same way:\n\u0027inet6_rtm_getroute()\u0027 always calls \u0027ip6_route_output()\u0027, regardless the\nRTA_IIF attribute.\n\nAs a result, in IPv6 there\u0027s no way to use RTM_GETROUTE in order to look\nfor a route as if a packet was received on a specific interface.\n\nFix \u0027inet6_rtm_getroute()\u0027 so that RTA_IIF is interpreted as \"lookup a\nroute as if a packet was received on the specified interface\", similar\nto IPv4\u0027s \u0027inet_rtm_getroute()\u0027 interpretation.\n\nReported-by: Ami Koren \u003camikoren@yahoo.com\u003e\nSigned-off-by: Shmulik Ladkani \u003cshmulik.ladkani@gmail.com\u003e\nSigned-off-by: David S. Miller \u003cdavem@davemloft.net\u003e\n",
  "tree_diff": [
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "496b62712fe8c9c42f15e59d86cfd94bc936e59b",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "net/ipv6/route.c",
      "new_id": "3992e26a603987cf8bba458dd4f687af5c900a2f",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "net/ipv6/route.c"
    }
  ]
}