ifi_change is valid in RTM_NEWLINK messages;
You need to check IFF_RUNNING and IFF_UP to see if the
device went admin up or down.
Another reference point for you at: section 3.3.3.1 of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-forces-netlink-03.txt
print out all the flags in the message headers that you receive.
[I just realized the draft also doesnt mention your issue, probably too
late o change it now that it is going into RFC status]
cheers,
jamal
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Patrick R. McManus wrote:
> for the sake of google, I'll followup to my own query. Sanity checks
> are appreciated too.
>
> the messages weren't identical - ifi_change had IFF_RUNNING set in one
> message and not the other. the man page says "ifi_change is reserved
> for future use" so I didn't know what to make of it before digging
> into the kernel src (2.4.19).
>
> -Pat
>
> [pat atducksong: Sep 26 18:38]
> > hello -
> >
> > I've got a little userspace app that listens to a netlink socket and
> > filters for messages of type RTM_NEWLINK to check for interfaces going
> > up or down (checking ifi_flags to make that determination)..
> >
> > the only stumbling point is that I each time I do something like
> > "ifconfig eth4 down" my app reads 2 identical RTM_NEWLINK messages
> > instead of one (same behavior on up case too.)
> >
> > any thoughts on why? I didn't really know how to interpret sockaddr
> > nl.nl_groups.. 1 seems to give me the same duplicates as ~0.. 0 gives me
> > nothing.
> >
> >
> > -Pat
> >
>
>
>
|