On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 16:54 +0200, Jukka Rissanen wrote:
> This is described in RFC 3041 and RFC 4941
Your code isn't described there.
> static void free_ipdevice(gpointer data)
> {
> struct connman_ipdevice *ipdevice = data;
> @@ -377,6 +439,7 @@ static void free_ipdevice(gpointer data)
> g_free(ipdevice->address);
>
> set_ipv6_state(ipdevice->ifname, ipdevice->ipv6_enabled);
> + set_ipv6_privacy(ipdevice->ifname, ipdevice->ipv6_privacy);
>
> g_free(ipdevice->ifname);
> g_free(ipdevice);
> @@ -474,6 +537,7 @@ void __connman_ipconfig_newlink(int index, unsigned short
> type,
> ipdevice->type = type;
>
> ipdevice->ipv6_enabled = get_ipv6_state(ipdevice->ifname);
> + ipdevice->ipv6_privacy = get_ipv6_privacy(ipdevice->ifname);
>
> ipdevice->address = g_strdup(address);
>
Hm, so we store the previous state of the device in
ipdevice->ipv6_privacy and restore it to its original state on shutdown?
> @@ -1610,6 +1674,8 @@ static void enable_ipv6(struct connman_ipconfig
> *ipconfig)
> if (ipdevice == NULL)
> return;
>
> + set_ipv6_privacy(ipdevice->ifname, 2);
> +
> set_ipv6_state(ipdevice->ifname, TRUE);
> }
... but while ConnMan is driving the device we *always* use this horrid
'privacy' mode when IPv6 is enabled?
Surely we wouldn't want that nonsense by default, we'd only want to
enable it when the user specifically tells us that they have stopped
taking their medication and they are wearing their tinfoil hat today?
Or did I miss something that a more expansive commit message would have
told me?
--
dwmw2
_______________________________________________
connman mailing list
connman@connman.net
http://lists.connman.net/listinfo/connman
