From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Graf Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtnetlink & address family problem Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 13:49:22 +0100 Message-ID: <20041207124922.GA1371@postel.suug.ch> References: <41B0A5B4.6060108@suse.cz> <20041206140214.GA749@postel.suug.ch> <1102386461.1093.26.camel@jzny.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Michal Ludvig , Andrew Morton , Stephen Hemminger , netdev@oss.sgi.com, Jan Kara Return-path: To: jamal Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1102386461.1093.26.camel@jzny.localdomain> Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org * jamal <1102386461.1093.26.camel@jzny.localdomain> 2004-12-06 21:27 > On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 09:02, Thomas Graf wrote: > > > Your patch would fix this issue but might break various things. The > > actual problem is that iproute2 doesn't check the family in its filter. > > It blindly assumes that the kernel only returns addresses of the kind it > > has requested. I can understand if you think the current behaviour > > is wrong but we shouldn't change it in the middle of a stable tree. > > Why would it be wrong? The PF_UNSPEC is there for a purpose. I don't think it is wrong myself but I understand if someone does. If one sends a GETADDR request for PF_INET6 one might expect to either receive all ipv6 addresses or none and to only receive all addresess of any type if PF_UNSPEC was specified. > If user space decides it wants to flush ipv4 addresses blindly that user > spaces fault. The patch you attached seems legit. did you verify it? Not yet, it probably has to be applied to iproute.c as well. I'll have a look at it and do some testing.