Re: What were the reasons of having mandatory IP address at AX.25 interfaces ?
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 03:38:35PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > Matti Aarnio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > .. the original reason was apparently that _ifconfig_ blew up > > when it saw protocols that it didn't understand on network > > interfaces. Possibly when there was no IP protocol on an > > interface. > > It's not only ifconfig, a lot of programs use SIOCGIFCONF > to query ip addresses. So ? My codes do too, and filter away things they are not interested in. (When they specifically look for IP addresses.) Of course I may be in minority by expecting the unexpected, and handling such "weird" multiprotocol systems... I found original explanation for that mandatoryness finally. It was in order to silence bug reports in certain cases when real fix would have been to really find all interfaces instead of complaining. In the end I used same trick that ifconfig tool uses to find all interfaces, and filter away those that AX.25 subsystems are not interested in - end of "SIOCGIFCONF problems". netdev:ish developemnt thing would be, that we ( = myself probably ) make SIOCGIFCONF to return those devices that have addresses in the protocol family that the socket used for the query has. For PF_INET we might return also PF_INET6 values to lessen the spanish-inquisition -impact... .. or do you know any who looks up interface IP addresses with PF_FILE ( = AF_UNIX ) socket ? What do the competitor systems B, S, and W do ? > -Andi /Matti Aarnio -- 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
Re: What were the reasons of having mandatory IP address at AX.25 interfaces ?
Matti Aarnio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > .. the original reason was apparently that _ifconfig_ blew up > when it saw protocols that it didn't understand on network > interfaces. Possibly when there was no IP protocol on an > interface. It's not only ifconfig, a lot of programs use SIOCGIFCONF to query ip addresses. -Andi -- 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
Re: What were the reasons of having mandatory IP address at AX.25 interfaces ?
.. the original reason was apparently that _ifconfig_ blew up when it saw protocols that it didn't understand on network interfaces. Possibly when there was no IP protocol on an interface. This happened on DECNET, and apparently on others too. Thus the SIOCGIFCONF ioctl is not returning much else than interfaces with IP addresses on them, and to get _all_ interfaces, one must read thru /proc/net/dev file. Some reason like that is possibly behind the reason why SIOCGIFCONF does not find anything but PF_INET sockets even when it is run on PF_AX25 type socket.. The "fun" part is that ifconfig does look for all devices in /proc/net/dev. Perhaps we should just make all devices findable with SIOCGIFCONF regardless of what protocols they may support ? And if the ifconfig blows up, the bug is in ifconfig tool, not kernel. Alternatively one could iterate all network devices of protocol family X being enabled when ioctl() is called on socket with PF_x (like PF_AX25.) Can anyone recall any real reason why this would not be acceptable ? /Matti Aarnio -- 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
