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: <1187181866.3998.46.camel@johannes.berg>
Date:	Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:44:26 +0200
From:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: set_multicast_list vs. set_rx_mode

On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 14:33 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> 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.

Ok. Want me to send a patch?

And then the expected behaviour is that set_rx_mode will set
IFF_ALLMULTI if it can't honour the list, right?

johannes

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (191 bytes)