[openib-general] Re: [iproute2] IPoIB link layer address bug
Mark Butler
butlerm at middle.net
Thu Mar 23 10:10:16 PST 2006
James Lentini wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
>
>
>>On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 03:56:17PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Okay, but there are number of other places in iproute2 that call
>>>ll_addr_a2n() with ifr.ifr_hwaddr.sa_data. And that is 14 bytes.
>>>If you want to fix those it will be harder since it would increase
>>>the sizeof(struct sockaddr) and potentially break compatibility.
>>>
>>>
>>Maybe the best thing is to upgrade ip (and or netlink?) to use
>>netlink messages instead of ioctls for the remaining problematic
>>operations. Since netlink already supports an arbitary length hwaddr
>>there should be no compatability problem.
>>
>>Just browsing I see usages of SIOCSIFHWBROADCAST, SIOCSIFHWADDR,
>>SIOCADDMULTI, SIOCDELMULTI and SIOCGIFHWADDR that use a struct
>>ifreq..
>>
>>I know SIOCGIFHWADDR can be done over netlink, but I'm not too
>>familiar with the others..
>>
>>
>
>Making ip neighbor work with IPoIB address is what I'm interested in
>now.
>
>As you and Jason point out there are a lot of places where ifreqs are
>used and hence options that will not support IPoIB addresses.
>
>
>
The sockaddr union is at the end of struct ifreq. Couldn't the union
sockaddr members be changed to sockaddr_storage, and the SIOCxxxx
encoded size bits be changed? dev_ifsioc() would just need to mask out
(or substitute) the size bits before the switch statement.
- Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/general/attachments/20060323/a4ef3768/attachment.html>
More information about the general
mailing list