[Top] [All Lists]


To: jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: IFF_PROMISC bug?
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:17:36 -0800 (PST)
Cc: ak@xxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <3C6A1EF5.1BF97B99@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <3C6A0F32.DE282B67@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20020212.234325.59465194.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3C6A1EF5.1BF97B99@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
   From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
   Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 03:08:21 -0500
   That little weird thing called binary compatibility.  It is possible to
   support IFF_PROMISC until the end of time, because the NIC promisc bit
   is similarly binary.  The change I propose is to regain what we have
   already lost.

(note: we "lost" this 5 years ago, and nobody has cared all
       this time, keep that in mind :-)
How do we handle SIOCSIFFLAGS then?

Do we just cancel out all the counts if we are asked to clear the
IFF_PROMISC bit?  That is definitely wrong, it blows away the entire
intention of having a count in the first place.  Or do we make it act
as a "decrement 1 count"?  That sounds equally lousy to me.

We can't just ignore the request by your very arguments.  Right?

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