On Monday 12 January 2004 23:14, Luke Gorrie wrote: > I agree that dev.c is not confusing, but the PACKET(7) interface > is. If you bind to ETH_P_ALL you will receive every packet, but if you > bind to any other protocol you will only receive packets the bridge > doesn't take. The manpage doesn't say anything about this, and one > might actually want different semantics (as in my case). IMO it would > be nicer to have an interface that treats "what protocol do I want to > see" and "do I want bridged packets" as orthogonal. Reading the man page is indeed confusing for a user, w.r.t. bridge ports. I think it would be more logical if all PF_PACKETsockets see the frames before the bridge code. How about placing the call to __handle_bridge() right after the second list_for_each? If I'm not mistaken the relevant pt_pre->func that would deal with the packet will not have been executed yet, while those PF_PACKET functions will already have been called... If you want the opinion of someone more knowledgeable than my humble self, the network guru's are located at netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxx cheers, Bart
