David Stevens wrote:
Brian Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/19/2007 07:35:46 AM:
...
if (usin->sin6_scope_id)
sk->sk_bound_dev_if = usin->sin6_scope_id;
if (!sk->sk_bound_dev_if &&
(addr_type & IPV6_ADDR_MULTICAST))
fl.oif = np->mcast_oif;
This assignment will not get us past the next check...
Yeah, that's what I get for typing in off-the-cuff code. What
I was thinking was the fl.oif assignment instead was:
if (!sk->sk_bound_dev_if &&
(addr_type & IPV6_ADDR_MULTICAST))
sk->sk_bound_dev_if = np->mcast_oif;
Which it is not, but maybe it could be, since this is a connect().
My original patch did this, but also checked for a possible mis-match
with sk_bound_dev_if - it would actually wind-up setting it to the same
value if it was already set correctly.
That patch looks better, but I'm wondering if we could just remove the
requirement that sin6_scope_id be set here if it's multicast, since it
is doing the following later in the code:
if (!fl.oif && (addr_type&IPV6_ADDR_MULTICAST))
fl.oif = np->mcast_oif;
We would still have to check np->mcast_oif is set in the link-local case
since we shouldn't be getting here with a zero.
So, really, all we need to do is get through the LINKLOCAL section
without error in the multicast case and we can remove the redundant
multicast check there. I think that'd be simpler.
I also note that sin6_scope_id appears not to be honored at all in
the non-linklocal case, which may be correct, but surprises me.
I want to look a little more at this; I know you have a customer
issue, so I'll make it quick.
Don't worry about that, they can wait, and I'm leaving for 10 days
anyways...
-Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
