On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 12:43:14PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote: > This is about the same number of code lines, but is simpler, and more > consistent with what will be added to check another attribute in a > coming patch. > > As a side effect, it > > Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1583131 > Signed-off-by: Laine Stump <laine@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > src/util/virnetdevip.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++------------------------ > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/util/virnetdevip.c b/src/util/virnetdevip.c > index 72048e4b45..c032ecacfc 100644 > --- a/src/util/virnetdevip.c > +++ b/src/util/virnetdevip.c > @@ -529,49 +529,42 @@ virNetDevIPCheckIPv6ForwardingCallback(struct nlmsghdr *resp, > void *opaque) > { > struct rtmsg *rtmsg = NLMSG_DATA(resp); > - int accept_ra = -1; > - struct rtattr *rta; > struct virNetDevIPCheckIPv6ForwardingData *data = opaque; > - int len = RTM_PAYLOAD(resp); > - int oif = -1; > + struct rtattr *rta_attr; > + int accept_ra = -1; > + int ifindex = -1; > VIR_AUTOFREE(char *) ifname = NULL; > > /* Ignore messages other than route ones */ > if (resp->nlmsg_type != RTM_NEWROUTE) > return 0; > > - /* Extract a device ID attribute */ > - VIR_WARNINGS_NO_CAST_ALIGN > - for (rta = RTM_RTA(rtmsg); RTA_OK(rta, len); rta = RTA_NEXT(rta, len)) { > - VIR_WARNINGS_RESET > - if (rta->rta_type == RTA_OIF) { > - oif = *(int *)RTA_DATA(rta); > - > - /* Should never happen: netlink message would be broken */ > - if (ifname) { > - VIR_AUTOFREE(char *) ifname2 = virNetDevGetName(oif); > - VIR_WARN("Single route has unexpected 2nd interface " > - "- '%s' and '%s'", ifname, ifname2); > - break; > - } > - > - if (!(ifname = virNetDevGetName(oif))) > - return -1; > - } > - } > - > /* No need to do anything else for non RA routes */ > if (rtmsg->rtm_protocol != RTPROT_RA) > return 0; > > - data->hasRARoutes = true; > + rta_attr = (struct rtattr *)nlmsg_find_attr(resp, sizeof(struct rtmsg), RTA_OIF); > + if (rta_attr) { > + /* This is a single path route, with interface used to reach > + * nexthop in the RTA_OIF attribute. > + */ > + ifindex = *(int *)RTA_DATA(rta_attr); > + ifname = virNetDevGetName(ifindex); > > - /* Check the accept_ra value for the interface */ > - accept_ra = virNetDevIPGetAcceptRA(ifname); > - VIR_DEBUG("Checking route for device %s, accept_ra: %d", ifname, accept_ra); > + if (ifname) I'd put if (!ifname) return -1; ^ here instead, since having (null) in the DEBUG output doesn't really help anyone and... > + accept_ra = virNetDevIPGetAcceptRA(ifname); > > - if (accept_ra != 2 && virNetDevIPCheckIPv6ForwardingAddIF(data, &ifname) < 0) > - return -1; > + VIR_DEBUG("Checking route for device %s (%d), accept_ra: %d", > + ifname, ifindex, accept_ra); > + > + if (!ifname || ... we'd return failure here anyway. > + (accept_ra != 2 && virNetDevIPCheckIPv6ForwardingAddIF(data, &ifname) < 0)) { > + return -1; > + } > + > + data->hasRARoutes = true; > + return 0; I think ^this return should be part of the next patch where it IMHO makes more sense. Reviewed-by: Erik Skultety <eskultet@xxxxxxxxxx> -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
