[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Don't assign a same IPv6 address on a same interface

To: yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Don't assign a same IPv6 address on a same interface
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:05:51 -0800 (PST)
Cc: kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, usagi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, pioppo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20030331.103451.118020141.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20030330163656.GA18645@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030331.033524.114862210.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030331.103451.118020141.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
   From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 10:34:51 +0900 (JST)

   In article <20030331.033524.114862210.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Mon, 31 
Mar 2003 03:35:24 +0900 (JST)), YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 
<yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> says:
   > In article <20030330163656.GA18645@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (at Sun, 30 Mar 2003 
18:36:56 +0200), Simone Piunno <pioppo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> says:
   > >  - locking inside ipv6_add_addr() is simpler and more linear but
   > >    semantically wrong because you're unable to tell the user why his 
   > >    "ip addr add" failed.  E.g. you answer ENOBUFS instead of EEXIST.
   > We don't want to create duplicate address in any case.
   > ipv6_add_addr() IS right place.
   > And, we can return error code by using IS_ERR() etc.
   > I'll fix this.
   Here's the revised patch.

Applied to both 2.4.x and 2.5.x.

BTW, 2.4.x patch failed in two spots, one was author comment
which I easily fixed, second was in privacy code which I did not
apply yet to 2.4.x (I fixed this too, don't worry).

I do not want to put privacy code into 2.4.x until crypto is there.
I plan to put crypto lib into 2.4.22-pre1.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>