David Miller wrote: > From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:04:15 +0200 > > >>I know this was discussed before, but I can't remember the >>exact outcome. Why don't we just unconditionally update iif >>in netif_receive_skb()? > > > Software devices might have interesting semantics that would > make not setting iif desirable.
Right, I remember now. > Once you set iif, you can't just undo it because the information > is lost. > > I also would really prefer to set it unconditionally in > netif_receive_skb(), but Jamal's concerns in this area are real. > We really need to evaluate this on a case-by-case basis. I still have a hard time imagining a case where this wouldn't fit, netfilter is perfectly happy with just using skb->dev as input device on the input path so far. I also think it will be confusing to the user to have different notions of what constitutes the input device. If anyone can think of an example where the user would really expect the input device to be something different than skb->dev I'd be really interested to hear it. BTW, this is not meant to be an objection to Thomas's patch, just me still wondering .. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
