Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:10:03 -0500
"John W. Linville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 06:54:21PM -0600, Michael Ellerman wrote:
+ /* XXX Why are we checking for 0xff here ? */
+ return (addr[0] == 0xff) || (!is_multicast_ether_addr(addr)
+ && !is_zero_ether_addr(addr));
That is a good question...what does a MAC address like
FF:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx signify? Anyone know?
Stupid Xen code that isn't in the mainline tree, and when it
gets submitted will fix it.
Not sure why it's that way, but hoping to address that in
the near future. Hope to fix it before it gets to mainline
submission, at any rate :).
thanks,
Nivedita
Yes, is_multicast_addr should only check most significant bit.
This fix should also be in stable because it prevents someone
from adding a device with multicast address to a bridge!
The bridge would then get it self confused.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
