On Sun, May 21, 2000 at 09:09:49PM +0200, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
> "A month of sundays ago Kurt Roeckx wrote:"
> > When I use ifconfig 1.39 (1999-03-18) linked against libc5 on 2.3.99-pre6,
> > and try lo:1 down, both lo and lo:1 are gone too.
> >
> > I still had serveral version here, compiled them, and this is what I get:
> >
> > 1.432 (1.29 (1997-09-23)) good
> > 1.46 (1.35 (1998-08-29)) good, but doesn't show lo:1 when it's up
> > 1.47 (1.36 (1998-10-31)) bad
> > 1.51 (1.39 (1999-03-18)) bad
>
> Can you look at the diff between ifconfig 1.35 and 1.36 and tell us if
> there's anything that looks like a loop across detected aliases? I
> noticed the strace showed two ioctl calls where I expected one.
I think the ioctl()'s are good. I think that they just changed on how they
get the interface, and just down lo, intead of lo:1.
with 1.35 I get:
socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 3
socket(0xa /* PF_??? */, SOCK_DGRAM, 0) = 4
socket(0x5 /* PF_??? */, SOCK_DGRAM, 0) = -1 ENOSYS (Function not
implemented)
socket(0x5 /* PF_??? */, SOCK_DGRAM, 0) = -1 ENOSYS (Function not
implemented)
socket(0x5 /* PF_??? */, SOCK_DGRAM, 0request_module[net-pf-5]:
waitpid(7757,...) failed, errno 1
) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
ioctl(3, SIOCGIFFLAGS, 0xbffff8d8) = 0
ioctl(3, SIOCSIFFLAGS, 0xbffff8d8) = 0
with 1.36 I get:
access("/proc", R_OK) = 0
socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 3
socket(PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 4
access("/proc/net/if_inet6", R_OK) = 0
socket(0xa /* PF_??? */, SOCK_DGRAM, 0) = 5
ioctl(5, SIOCGIFFLAGS, 0xbffff8c8) = 0
ioctl(5, SIOCSIFFLAGS, 0xbffff8c8) = 0
You'll notice that it now checks /proc.
But afaik, the ioctl should be called with the same arguments. It's not
making much sense to me.
Kurt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
