From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:48:18 -0800 (PST)

> Back to a workable solution, why doesn't DHCP specify a specific
> device?  It would fix this performance problem completely, at the
> application level.

Since nobody seems to be able to be bothered to actually look
at what DHCP clients are doing, I actually did and it's no
surprise that broken stuff is happening here.

Here is how dhcp3-3.0.3 binds AF_PACKET sockets, in common/lpf.c:

        struct sockaddr sa;
 ...
        /* Bind to the interface name */
        memset (&sa, 0, sizeof sa);
        sa.sa_family = AF_PACKET;
        strncpy (sa.sa_data, (const char *)info -> ifp, sizeof sa.sa_data);
        if (bind (sock, &sa, sizeof sa)) {
                if (errno == ENOPROTOOPT || errno == EPROTONOSUPPORT ||
                    errno == ESOCKTNOSUPPORT || errno == EPFNOSUPPORT ||
                    errno == EAFNOSUPPORT || errno == EINVAL) {
                        log_error ("socket: %m - make sure");
                        log_error ("CONFIG_PACKET (Packet socket) %s",
                                   "and CONFIG_FILTER");
                        log_error ("(Socket Filtering) are enabled %s",
                                   "in your kernel");
                        log_fatal ("configuration!");
                }
                log_fatal ("Bind socket to interface: %m");
        }

So it puts a string into the sockaddr data, and there
is no mention of sockaddr_ll, which is what is supposed to be
provided as the socket address here, in the entire DHCP tree.

I'm tempted to say I must be missing something here, since I can't see
how this could possible work at all.  The string passed in should
be interpreted as the ifindex value, and thus trigger a -ENODEV
return from AF_PACKET's bind() implementation.

My suspicions are confirmed by the patch here:

http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/chuyee/patches/dhcp-3.0/dhcp-3.0-linux_cooked_packet.patch

Really, this bogus bind() explains everything.


-
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

Reply via email to