From owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org Sat Aug 20 17:30:56 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46120BC0857; Sat, 20 Aug 2016 17:30:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 043821F0B; Sat, 20 Aug 2016 17:30:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru) Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1bbA6c-0004bP-UR; Sat, 20 Aug 2016 20:30:50 +0300 Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2016 20:30:50 +0300 From: Slawa Olhovchenkov To: Ryan Stone Cc: Bruce Simpson , "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" , Ryan Stone , "src-committers@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" , Adrian Chadd Subject: Re: svn commit: r304436 - in head: . sys/netinet Message-ID: <20160820173050.GQ22212@zxy.spb.ru> References: <201608182259.u7IMx5oW002018@repo.freebsd.org> <4fbc2e1d-3a62-5963-83d5-f9c931503e51@fastmail.net> <3806700d-ed27-7915-4818-c2d64f7b806d@fastmail.net> <6f4449f2-d145-8b49-c3f0-433e8ff4d2a2@fastmail.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2016 17:30:56 -0000 On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 12:36:58PM -0400, Ryan Stone wrote: > + adrian@, who prompted me to look at UDP in the first place > > > I'm really not sure what my next step should be. I'm willing to revert > r304436, but I really don't want to revert r304437 because we've seen > crashes in the real world due to the missing locking. Unfortunately, > reverting r304436 would mean that every UDP packet would incur the overhead > of an additional rlock/runlock call, which is what I've been trying to > avoid. I don't see a particularly good path forward. As I understund specific handling of broadcast required only for routers (by RFC1812). For host enought have [hidden] alias with broadcsts bits. Anyway, don't should relay on the L2 information, you can recive L3 unicast addressed packets (with alien dst IP address) in L2 broadcas packet. Sorry if I am miss something in you discurs.