From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49081) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UDeP8-0003Mx-9J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:14:58 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UDeP2-0006Hy-MU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:14:54 -0500 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.104]:43836) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UDeP2-0006Ec-GD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 12:14:48 -0500 Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:14:28 +0100 From: Samuel Thibault Message-ID: <20130307171428.GC6043@type.bordeaux.inria.fr> References: <20130305163510.GC3177@type.bordeaux.inria.fr> <20130306122937.GD1954@stefanha-thinkpad.muc.redhat.com> <20130306131525.GC6173@type.bordeaux.inria.fr> <20130307093826.GE13854@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20130307093826.GE13854@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PER] Re: socket, mcast looping back frames -> IPv6 broken List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: ped@listes.subiron.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Stefan Hajnoczi, le Thu 07 Mar 2013 10:38:26 +0100, a écrit : > On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 02:15:25PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > Stefan Hajnoczi, le Wed 06 Mar 2013 13:29:37 +0100, a écrit : > > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 05:35:10PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > > > Unfortunately net/socket.c does not have the concept of a link-layer > > > address, so we cannot easily filter out multicast packets coming from > > > our NIC's address. > > > > > > Are you aware of a way to filter out just the packets sent by *this* > > > process? > > > > I haven't seen any in the Linux source code. One thing that should > > work, however, is to use recvfrom, and drop whatever comes from our > > sockname. > > Sounds like a plan :). Except that the sockname is the multicast address itself... I'll have a closer look. Samuel