From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Feb  8 13:39:57 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B9E641E;
 Sat,  8 Feb 2014 13:39:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from master.debian.org (master.debian.org
 [IPv6:2001:41b8:202:deb:216:36ff:fe40:4001])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E632C1C33;
 Sat,  8 Feb 2014 13:39:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost ([::1]) by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
 (envelope-from <rmh@debian.org>)
 id 1WC88Q-0002Sc-D1; Sat, 08 Feb 2014 13:39:54 +0000
Message-ID: <52F633A9.6020206@debian.org>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 13:39:53 +0000
From: Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: glebius@freebsd.org
Subject: in_control() rewrite breaks support for old (9.x) SIOCAIFADDR ABI
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 13:39:57 -0000


Hi Gleb,

We've noticed that your recent rewrite of in_control() (r257692) broke
backward compatibility support with the old (9.x) SIOCAIFADDR ABI (pre-r228768).

I have no idea why this happens, and I'm not sure whether this is intentional.

It doesn't affect us anyway (we have 10.x userland now), but I thought you
might like to know.

More details are available at:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=732693

-- 
Robert Millan