On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 07:02:33AM +0100, Colin Percival wrote:
...
> >On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 01:42:20PM +0100, Colin Percival wrote:
> >> if we're going to check that
> >> 0 < ifp->if_index <= if_index, it seems that we should also be
> >> checking that ifp->if_index corresponds to an interface w
At 14:35 04/05/2004, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 01:42:20PM +0100, Colin Percival wrote:
>> if we're going to check that
>> 0 < ifp->if_index <= if_index, it seems that we should also be
>> checking that ifp->if_index corresponds to an interface which
>> still exists (rather than a
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 01:42:20PM +0100, Colin Percival wrote:
> Could someone confirm for me that this looks sensible? I don't
> know anything about this code, but if we're going to check that
> 0 < ifp->if_index <= if_index, it seems that we should also be
> checking that ifp->if_index corres
Could someone confirm for me that this looks sensible? I don't
know anything about this code, but if we're going to check that
0 < ifp->if_index <= if_index, it seems that we should also be
checking that ifp->if_index corresponds to an interface which
still exists (rather than a gap left behind
