At 14:35 04/05/2004, Luigi Rizzo wrote: >On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 01:42:20PM +0100, Colin Percival wrote: >> if we're going to check that >> 0 < ifp->if_index <= if_index, it seems that we should also be >> checking that ifp->if_index corresponds to an interface which >> still exists (rather than a gap left behind when an interface was >> removed). > >well, the problem here and elsewhere is whether we trust the rcvif >field or not
Right; I wasn't sure if we did trust it. In particular, I wonder about packets received immediately before an interface is removed. >So i'd vote to remove all the bogus checks here and elsewhere, rather >than add newer ones. If the check is unnecessary, by all means remove it; but the current situation, where a check is half-performed, is certainly not correct. :-) Colin Percival _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
