| Hello, | | In net/core/dev.c I found this lines in function dev_ifsioc: | | case SIOCADDMULTI: | if (!dev->set_multicast_list || | ifr->ifr_hwaddr.sa_family != AF_UNSPEC) | return -EINVAL; | if (!netif_device_present(dev)) | return -ENODEV; | --> dev_mc_add(dev, ifr->ifr_hwaddr.sa_data, | dev->addr_len, 1); | --> return 0; | | case SIOCDELMULTI: | if (!dev->set_multicast_list || | ifr->ifr_hwaddr.sa_family != AF_UNSPEC) | return -EINVAL; | if (!netif_device_present(dev)) | return -ENODEV; | --> dev_mc_delete(dev, ifr->ifr_hwaddr.sa_data, | dev->addr_len, 1); | --> return 0; | | As I understand functions dev_mc_add and dev_mc_delete return values | including different errors. But this values are not checked in this code. | This causes for example returning success when trying to delete a non-exiting | muticast address. It could be fixed this way : | | case SIOCADDMULTI: | if (!dev->set_multicast_list || | ifr->ifr_hwaddr.sa_family != AF_UNSPEC) | return -EINVAL; | if (!netif_device_present(dev)) | return -ENODEV; | --> return dev_mc_add(dev, ifr->ifr_hwaddr.sa_data, | dev->addr_len, 1); | | case SIOCDELMULTI: | if (!dev->set_multicast_list || | ifr->ifr_hwaddr.sa_family != AF_UNSPEC) | return -EINVAL; | if (!netif_device_present(dev)) | return -ENODEV; | --> return dev_mc_delete(dev, ifr->ifr_hwaddr.sa_data, | dev->addr_len, 1); | | There are a few more functions in kernel (with dev_mc_add and dev_mc_delete) | where you can find similar code. If the described situation is really error | then this fuctions should be fixed too. I used 2.6.2 and 2.4.18 kernels. I see. So why do all callers of dev_mc_add() and dev_mc_delete() not check the return value of those functions?? Anyone? I agree, it looks like dev_ifsioc() could/should return those results. -- ~Randy - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
