From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yang Hongyang Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPv6:fix the return interface index when get it while no message is received Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:28:16 +0800 Message-ID: <48AA6800.1020506@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <48A911AD.7060102@cn.fujitsu.com> <48A9799B.4040409@hp.com> <20080818.223857.125980599.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: vladislav.yasevich@hp.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:61530 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752560AbYHSG2y (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:28:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080818.223857.125980599.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: > From: Vlad Yasevich > Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:31:07 -0400 > >> I don't think that's correct at all. The code path shows here is >> when there are no received options and no sticky options set. In >> such case, we shouldn't be returning multicast or bound interfaces. >> We should be returning 0. I use setsockopt() to set the bounded interface of the socket, and then I get receiving interface index while no message is received through the above socket,shoudn't the bounded interface be returned? >> >> Additionally the address returned is completely bogus as well. We >> are returning the address our peer instead of the one of our own >> addresses. If message is received,the address returned is what the received message refered to, otherwise the address returned is what I used setsockopt() to set before. > > Yang, please fix this up, thank you. > > Seems that I misunderstood the RFC?