asomers added a comment.
Awesome work jhujhiti. Unfortunately, I won't be able to test it until PR
216734 is fixed or I make myself another FreeBSD head machine. I'll try to do
that sometime next week.
REPOSITORY
rS FreeBSD src repository
REVISION DETAIL
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D9
asomers added a reviewer: bz.
REPOSITORY
rS FreeBSD src repository
REVISION DETAIL
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D9451
EMAIL PREFERENCES
https://reviews.freebsd.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
To: jhujhiti_adjectivism.org, #network, asomers, bz
Cc: bz, imp, ae, freebsd-net-list
___
asomers requested changes to this revision.
asomers added a subscriber: bz.
asomers added a comment.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
In addition to the issues I mentioned inline, could you please also update
the review summary to include the full commit message? Try to mention
asomers added a comment.
In https://reviews.freebsd.org/D9451#196364, @jhujhiti_adjectivism.org wrote:
> As I mentioned in the PR, this is my first attempt at kernel work, so I
very much appreciate the comments. I'll go ahead and update the review summary
at my next opportunity.
>
>
asomers added a comment.
This review is starting to look pretty good. But in addition to the few
things I mentioned inline, there's one other change that you need to make: you
get to clear the `atf_expect_fail` statements from
tests/sys/netinet/fibs_test.sh.
INLINE COMMENTS
> jhujhiti_adj
asomers added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> jhujhiti_adjectivism.org wrote in nd6.c:1295
> > It's totally valid for an interface to have multiple addresses assigned,
> > each of which is on a different fib.
>
> Is this true? I'm not aware of a way this could happen. Interface routes are
>
asomers added a comment.
Almost done. I think the only thing left is to delete all of the related
atf_expect_fail statements from fibs_test.sh, not just one.
INLINE COMMENTS
> jhujhiti_adjectivism.org wrote in nd6.c:1353
> This seems like a good idea. Is this new code what you had in mind?
asomers added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> jhujhiti_adjectivism.org wrote in icmp6.c:2147
> @asomers, can you confirm that M_GETFIB(m) is always correctly set to the FIB
> of the receiving interface?
No. According to the comment at the bottom of icmp6_error, it isn't, because
icmp6_refl
asomers accepted this revision.
asomers added inline comments.
This revision has a positive review.
INLINE COMMENTS
> jhujhiti_adjectivism.org wrote in nd6_nbr.c:265
> I think this is the only thing left to consider for this patch, but it seems
> to me that using the receiving interface's FIB is
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.
Closed by commit rS315458: Constrain IPv6 routes to single FIBs when
net.add_addr_allfibs=0 (authored by asomers).
CHANGED PRIOR TO COMMIT
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D9451?vs=26053&id=26359#toc
REPOSITORY
rS FreeBSD s
asomers added a comment.
Even if this is the correct change to make, the old option must still be
supported for backwards compatibility with older PXE servers. Shouldn't there
be an accompanying documentation change? How will users know to change their
DHCP options?
REVISION DETAIL
http
asomers added a comment.
In https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10485#217709, @kczekirda wrote:
> @asomers
> this change exactly provides compatibility with PXE standard, because in
the PXE specification option 150 doesn't exist, but 66 does.
> netproto variable and option 150 appears in
12 matches
Mail list logo
