Wolfgang Wiedmeyer wrote: > > The reverse tether script checks if a gateway address is available and > if that's the case, it assumes that the network is configured. Didn't > you do the same in the first version of the patch? Did you drop that > solution because there was no method for it available or what was the > reason? The first version used shell commands to check for an available gateway. To my best effort, I wasn't able to find any pure java way of checking it, so I decided to remove that check, in favor of a more compact path of execution. I remember you had doubts about invoking external processes, and I totally agreed with you, after reasoning about the situation securty-wise. As I understood it, while relying on shell scripts is ok in a standalone application like RepWifi (and currently the only viable solution), that model could introduce serious issues when used inside the very core of the operating system. That's the only reason I removed the gateway check.
> Wouldn't it be possible to e.g. read the property > dhcp.wlan0.gateway and check if it's empty or not? For sure, but I currently lack a way of doing it, without using shell commands. See above; same reasoning. I'm investigating android.net.DhcpInfo class, to see if it's usable in this context. I'll get back to you if I get to get something out of it. > Would this be a more general solution that covers these corner cases? Or > does your above solution already solve the issue? > > I think it's a lot more important that there are no false positives > because I could imagine that some apps won't handle this graciously. That's my point, also. When in doubt, I prefer to cut away an uncommon scenario, than to risk a false positive in common situations like NAT'd networks. All the same, I make myself available to introduce the adaptation we discussed of, including public IPs as valid ones for wlan0. Though, it would be much better for me to avoid "rewrite-rebuild-reflash-and-test", as it is a *VERY* onerous process of developing, compared to how simple the modification is. Isn't there any smarter way of changing my V2-patch without packing up a "V3" or whatever? Regards to all, Fil
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Replicant mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
