From owner-freebsd-bugs Fri Oct 27 10:10: 9 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8FA937B479 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:10:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id KAA08713; Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:10:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:10:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200010271710.KAA08713@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Garrett Wollman Subject: kern/22185: Identical IP addresses on two broadcast interfaces Reply-To: Garrett Wollman Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR kern/22185; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Garrett Wollman To: yar@comp.chem.msu.su Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: kern/22185: Identical IP addresses on two broadcast interfaces Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:00:27 -0400 (EDT) < Maybe, the code should try to add the link layer route first, > and assign the address to the interface only if adding > the route succeeded? This can't be done, because in order to add the route, the ifaddr must already be present. The trouble is that sometimes this error does not indicate a problem (even though it usually does). I think the right thing is probably to compare the new (A1, M1) against all the existing ifaddrs and fail the request if any (A2, M2) is present such that M1 == M2 and (A1 & M1) == (A2 & M2). There may be other conditions which should fail as well. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same wollman@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message