* David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2006-06-26 10:46 > From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:04:15 +0200 > > > I know this was discussed before, but I can't remember the > > exact outcome. Why don't we just unconditionally update iif > > in netif_receive_skb()? > > Software devices might have interesting semantics that would > make not setting iif desirable. > > Once you set iif, you can't just undo it because the information > is lost. > > I also would really prefer to set it unconditionally in > netif_receive_skb(), but Jamal's concerns in this area are real. > We really need to evaluate this on a case-by-case basis.
I'm playing with a FIFO device based on Jamal's previous work to replace the broken IMQ device and provide real queueing at ingress. A set of VLAN devices could be redirected to such a FIFO device and let applications bind to it in order to implement trivial bind(INADDR_ANY) namespaces based on anything that can be selected by classifiers. This example would benefit from a conditional iif update (given that the mirred action is extended to take a flag to steer this) so applications like a dhcp daemon could use a raw socket on the FIFO device and thus benefit from the bind namespace but still access the original interface the packet was received from using pktinfo cmsg. Maybe silly but the best I could come up with :-) - 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
