Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>