[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAEU2+vrgxzTmiHWs-kVoKeu2_DcFZQBjCXwQfQ8dms5O6+Larg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 15:29:44 -0700
From: "Erich E. Hoover" <ehoover@...es.edu>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Linux Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Implement IP_UNICAST_IF socket option.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Le jeudi 02 février 2012 à 14:36 -0700, Erich E. Hoover a écrit :
> > ...
> > + if (sk->sk_bound_dev_if && ifindex != sk->sk_bound_dev_if)
> > + break;
>
> what happens if later sk_bound_dev_if is changed ? Should we redo the
> above tests ?
Would it be better if ip_default_ifindex performed the same comparison
and prioritized the sk->sk_bound_dev_if value?
> > ...
> > + case IP_UNICAST_IF:
> > + {
> > + __be32 iface;
> > +
> > + len = sizeof(__be32);
> > + iface = htonl(inet->outif_index);
> > + release_sock(sk);
> > +
> > + if (put_user(len, optlen))
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > + if (copy_to_user(optval, &iface, len))
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > + return 0;
>
> wow.... thats not pretty...
>
> what about :
>
> case IP_UNICASE_IF:
> val = htonl(inet->outif_index);
> break;
>
The return value needs to be 4 bytes even if sizeof(int) != 4.
> > ...
> IPv6 not supported ?
Nope, at least according to the documentation the option is only for
IPv4 (IPPROTO_IP).
Erich Hoover
ehoover@...es.edu
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists