netdev - Re: set_multicast_list vs. set_rx

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <46C2F2B5.60803@trash.net>
Date:	Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:33:57 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: set_multicast_list vs. set_rx_mode

Johannes Berg wrote:
> Is it intentional that in the case where set_rx_mode is assigned, you
> still need to assign set_multicast_list even if it won't ever be called
> as a flag for SIOCADDMULTI?
> 
> I was thinking of converting the wireless code to use set_rx_mode and
> assign set_multicast_list only if the underlying hardware supports
> multicast filtering, and it seems that is well-supported, but it does
> seem a bit weird that set_multicast_list degrades to a flag.

Indeed, I missed that. It should check for !dev->set_multicast_list &&
!dev->set_rx_mode before returning -EINVAL.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html