Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:50:41 +0300 From: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> To: Gregory Nou <gregorynou@altern.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Question on IFF_PPROMISC (and IFF_PROMISC) Message-ID: <20060130185041.GF72743@comp.chem.msu.su> In-Reply-To: <43DA1672.1080609@altern.org> References: <43DA1672.1080609@altern.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 01:47:46PM +0100, Gregory Nou wrote: > > I found a (somewhat old) post from gnn@ on this topic there : > http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/net/2004-09/0289.html > > I also think that it would be a good idea to do it (at least, it would > be easier to understand, because IFF_PPROMISC is not that explicit). If > nobody has already done it, I'll work on this. > > There is another point on which I would appreciate to know your opinion: > referring to if.c[1269], I understand that if IFF_PPROMISC is set in > ifp->if_flags, IFF_PROMISC should be set to (or we are in a transient > situation). > It appears that if_ethersubr.c[652] is working in this case. Isn't it a > mistake ? IMHO there's little point in changing the identifier's name. That will do more harm than good. The existing code looks correct to me. if_ethersubr.c:652 drops a frame not addressed to us only if IFF_PROMISC is set, but IFF_PPROMISC is not set. The point is that if IFF_PPROMISC is set, the frame will be passed up to IP or whatever anyway. -- Yar
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060130185041.GF72743>