Re: 2.2.15 + IPv6: serious bug when removing aliased interfaces

From: Kurt Roeckx (Q@ping.be)
Date: Sun May 21 2000 - 16:47:47 EDT

  • Next message: Michael H. Warfield: "Re: sg SCSI bus timeout problem (2.3.99pre...)"

    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-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 21 2000 - 16:50:36 EDT