"A month of sundays ago Alan Cox wrote:"
> > Because the this only happens with IPv6, it is an obvious bug. In
> > addition, about 99.9% of people are using commands like 'ifconfig eth0:5
> > up' and [down]. It should go right by default.
>
> So strace your ifconfig eth0:5 down figure out which ioctl is causing the
> problem and if its kernel or user space then submit a patch. If its
> inconsistent then Im happy to take a patch for it
I have to say, however, that on the 2.2.15 right here on my workstation
(with ipv6 loaded), ifconfig lo:0 down works fine. It doesn't touch lo.
However ...
On a 2.2.10 downstairs, also with ipv6 loaded, ifconfig lo:0 down works
its bad-magic on lo! It gets blasted. Downstairs, I believe ipv6 is
possibly loaded before ethernet drivers.
It might be the ifconfig version. The most obvious differences in the
traces is that downstairs (2.2.10), the ifconfig does a whole lot of
rooting around in proc:
access("/proc/net", R_OK) = 0
access("/proc/net/unix", R_OK) = 0
socket(PF_UNIX, SOCK_DGRAM, 0) = 3
socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 4
access("/proc/net/if_inet6", R_OK) = 0
socket(PF_INET6, SOCK_DGRAM, 0) = 5
access("/proc/net/ax25", R_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
None of that upstairs here (2.2.15). Downstairs (2.2.10), the final
ioctl is:
ioctl(5, SIOCGIFFLAGS, 0xbffff5ec) = 0
ioctl(5, SIOCSIFFLAGS, 0xbffff5ec) = 0
and upstairs (2.2.15) it is:
ioctl(3, SIOCGIFFLAGS, 0xbfffee60) = 0
ioctl(3, SIOCSIFFLAGS, 0xbfffee60) = 0
Downstairs (2.2.10), 5 is a socket:
access("/proc/net/if_inet6", R_OK) = 0
socket(PF_INET6, SOCK_DGRAM, 0) = 5
and upstairs (2.2.15), 3 is a slightly different socket:
socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 3
I seem to have net-tools 1.432 ifconfig 1.29 (1997-09-23) upstairs.
Yes, this is libc 5.4.38. Downstairs it is net-tools 1.54 ifconfig 1.39
(1999-03-18), and glibc 2.1.2.
Peter
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
