https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196474
Jamie Gritton <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] Status|New |In Progress --- Comment #10 from Jamie Gritton <[email protected]> --- Created attachment 151509 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=151509&action=edit Don't set pr_ip4s to -1 I'm with Bjoern in that I see the problem on the jail_set end, and not the jail_get end. But I wouldn't want to make the command fail. It seems a reasonable analog to (the correct) "ip4=disable", and in fact ends up treating it the same way in every respect except the jail_get panic. It's never proper for pr_ip4 to have a negative value. It used to be, before the PR_IP4_DISABLE flag, and I would test for it in the proper places. But I was incorrect to keep that vestige when I added the flag. I must have considered it proper at the time since I took pains to keep it, but a years-later code review concludes differently. My patch merely gets rid of the -1 that doesn't belong. After that, the only difference between an ip4-disabled jail and one that is set to no addresses is the PR_IP4_DISABLED flag. Both have no addresses, and will not admit to supporting IPV4. In fact, PR_IP4_DISABLED, which is only ever referenced in kern_jail.c, becomes write-only and useless. I plan to issue a second patch which removes it entirely. But that isn't quite part of this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
