At 05:31 AM 3/24/2009, Luiz Otavio O Souza wrote:
Hi,
I read over your patch and I don't think you need to
change the definition of rt_Update() to fix this bug.
Have you read my patch committed to head/user.sbin/ppp/route.c
on 12/18/2008? svn r186308, cvs r1.96.
Please take a look.
Thanks,
-- Qing
Hi Qing,
Yes i've read your patch, but i don't understand what you are
meaning... and yes, changing the definition of rt_Update is not my
first intention, but it is the way i've found to fix this.
Backing to the patch... The rt_Update need the ifp and ifa
information to correctly update the route, and this is available
only in route_UpdateMTU (wich read the current route table).
You are suggesting that this information could be found at
sa[RTAX_GATEWAY] (if sa[RTAX_GATEWAY]->sa_family == AF_LINK) ? And
i don't need to pass the sa[RTAX_IFP] and sa[RTAX_IFA] ?
Well, i really don't remember, but i'll check and post an update later.
Thanks,
Luiz
I personally think that, from a style perspective, changing the
definition of rt_Update is good. I was thinking of doing it myself
when I was inspecting the code and trying to figure out how to
ensure that the interface was specified in the routing table entry.
Adding the additional arguments makes the routine more flexible and
makes the intent of calls to it more explicit. That being said, any
change that fixes the bug is welcome. (The code that shipped with
7.1-RELEASE will break many if not most systems that rely on
userland PPP to implement a server.) I might consider using mpd
instead, but it would be a big implementation change and mpd lacks
a few capabilities that I really need.
--Brett Glass
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
