Hi, On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:41:56PM +0200, Lev Stipakov wrote: > Hi, > > >> So, if we want to use index also for "add/del route", I'd gently modify > >> add/del_route_ipv6 and make it use "interface=<idx>" (without breaking > >> "vpn server special route" case). > > > > For consistency, I think we should do that. What I'd avoid is to do > > the adapter_index lookup for every single route - which would imply adding > > the index to struct tuntap_options or something like that which is > > available in add/del_route[_ipv6]() already. But this is less elegant > > than I hoped for, and might have to look different for 2.3 and master. > > Adding the index - you probably meant to "struct tuntap"?
Sort of. Struct tuntap has a sub-struct "struct tuntap_options options"
which is mostly empty for all platforms but WIN32, and on WIN32 contains
stuff like
/* --ip-win32 options */
bool ip_win32_defined;
int ip_win32_type;
already (tun.h). So adding "tuntap_adapter_index" or something like this
here would be fully in line with the existing style of packing windows
specific bits nicely away, but having them available where needed...
route_add() gets passed a "struct tuntap *tt", so the option would be
in tt->options.tuntap_adapter_index...
> Master has member "adapter_index", which seems to be used for "special
> case", release/2.3 does not have that.
Now that's an interesting finding. I never noticed that, but it basically
*is* what I propose above - not in tuntap_options but in the "main"
struct tuntap - and I had no idea that this one existed (I tend to not
look very closely at #ifdef WIN32 bits unless I have to).
It *is* in 2.3, btw :-) - as per "git blame tun.h" it was introduced
into James' svn repo before we even had a git repo...
> Do you think it is safe to store adapter index there (would have to add
> it to 2.3) without breaking "special case"? I personally not so sure,
> since that "adapter_index" is obtained via "adapter_index_of_ip" in
> tun.c, which looks quite different from "get_adapter_index_flexible".
>
> We might have a semantic problem here.
adapter_index_of_ip() seems to be a "find connect routes" thing, not
tied to the tuntap adapter - but that doesn't seem to be connected to
tt->adapter_index.
Don't confuse with "rgi->adapter_index" - *that* is for routing information,
and might point elsewhere.
tt->adapter_index seems to be set only in two places, namely
tun.c: tt->adapter_index = TUN_ADAPTER_INDEX_INVALID;
and
tun.c: tt->adapter_index = get_adapter_index (device_guid);
(in open_tun())
... and that one seems to be sort of like "get_adapter_index_flexible()
lite" - the latter can search for guid *or name*, while the former only
searches by guid.
So... I think we can just *use* that in add/del_route*(), and be happy
everafter :-) - it's not available when we do "netsh... set address",
unfortunately, as open_tun() happens *after* do_ifconfig() on windows...
Definitely worth a try.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany g...@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 g...@net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
