From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH] MASQUERADE handling of device events Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 14:58:38 -0800 Message-ID: <20041111145838.6bdb40ce.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20041107181825.GA3522@linuxace.com> <20041108135025.GF12437@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-net@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Harald Welte In-Reply-To: <20041108135025.GF12437@sunbeam.de.gnumonks.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-devel-bounces@lists.netfilter.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 14:50:25 +0100 Harald Welte wrote: > Dave: would the two changes below be acceptable for you? > > > 1) export inet_confirm_addr This one I think is OK. > > 2) change inet_ifa_match to use ifa_local instead of ifa_address. > > Since ifa_local != ifa_address on ppp interfaces, inet_ifa_match > > could not be used to verify ppp interface addresses without > > this change. This one on the other hand is a serious semantic change and needs more careful thought. ifa_address is used for a reason, and people expecting that are going to break if we change things this way. A study of at least the net/ipv4/devinet.c shows that this ifa_address vs. ifa_local distinction is definitely on purpose. I really don't think we can make this suggested change therefore.