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
