On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 11:19:26PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 04:30:03PM +0000, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Please look at net/ipv4/arp.c:arp_process()
> > > >
> > > > Am I right that CONFIG_NET_ETHERNET=n and CONFIG_NETDEV_1000=y or
> > > > CONFIG_NETDEV_10000=y will not be handled correctly there?
> > > >
> > > > And the best solution is to nuke all #ifdef's in this function and make
> > > > the code unconditionally available?
> > >
> > > I think removing those specific ifdefs in arp_process()
> > > is the best option, yes.
> >
> > Patch below.
>
> Thanks Adrian. Patch applied to net-2.6.
>
> Do we need this for stable too?
Unless I'm misunderstanding the code we currently wrongly ignore
some ARP packages based on the setting of an unrelated option, so
it seems to be a -stable candidate when it's in Linus' tree.
> Chers,
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
