Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 1 Jul 2001 17:19:28 +0800
From:      Igor Podlesny <poige@morning.ru>
To:        Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re[2]: Flight of the rat, living wreck.....
Message-ID:  <34931950.20010701171928@morning.ru>
In-Reply-To: <3B3E0D93.79738728@softweyr.com>
References:  <754836544.20010630185133@morning.ru> <3B3E0D93.79738728@softweyr.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

> Igor Podlesny wrote:
>> > /*
>> >  * Macro for finding the interface (ifnet structure) corresponding to one
>> >  * of our IP addresses.
>> >  */
>> > #define INADDR_TO_IFP(addr, ifp) \
>> >         /* struct in_addr addr; */ \
>> >         /* struct ifnet *ifp; */ \
>> > { \
>> >         register struct in_ifaddr *ia; \
>> > \
>> >         for (ia = in_ifaddrhead.tqh_first; \
>> 
>> // so here we start looking through the queue
>> 
>> >             ia != NULL
>> 
>> // sanity (I'd have written just (ia))
>> 
>> >  && ((ia->ia_ifp->if_flags & IFF_POINTOPOINT)? \
>> 
>> // hm. special case if the interface is PTP
>> 
>> >                 IA_DSTSIN(ia):IA_SIN(ia))->sin_addr.s_addr != (addr).s_addr; \
>> 
>> // so it is like: if it is PTP, then we using DST address in comparison
>> // with addr.s_addr
>> 
>> // it is the time I started to ask myself why it is so? why we're (ok,
>> // they're) checking for remote ip-address if the head comment
>> // says:
>> // * Macro for finding the interface (ifnet structure) corresponding to one
>> // * of our IP addresses.
>> //      ^^^
>> //      ^^^

> With point-to-point connections, the address at the opposite end of the
> connection is always used in the route table.  When the interface is
> created as a point-to-point interface, a route is automatically entered
> from the local address to the opposite address.
nothing to say agains this... but which relation to the ipfw problem
you've found here?
> The "corresponding"
> in the comment at the beginning of the macro is interpreted rather loosely.

What do you mean by that? :)

p.s.   The  idea  of  my  letter  wasn't  in  incorrectly  written  on
interpreted   code   comment   header,   but  in  IPFW's  'me'  broken
implementation.

-- 
 Igor                            mailto:poige@morning.ru



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?34931950.20010701171928>