Requesting comments on patchset to fix Bug 7929 (C&C 3 network does not work)

[Erich Hoover]

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Juan Lang <juan.lang at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Eric,
>
> it seems to me that if this is the best we can do, we're fixing it at
> the wrong layer.  Surely putting the fix in the Linux kernel would be
> much smaller in code size, and higher performing, as we wouldn't have
> to filter packets in user space.
> --Juan
>

I put this patchset together after reviewing several years of conversations
people have had with the kernel developers.  A simple summary of what the
devs have said is that the functions in the kernel that provide the ability
to do this "easily" require root privileges for very good reasons
(essentialy, the easy ways of approaching this problem allow overriding
certain permissions mechanisms).  Their suggestion was to filter using
IP_PKTINFO (which is what the patches do):
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-net@vger.kernel.org/msg01341.html

The maintainer has pretty much "put his foot down" on the matter (several
times actually, here's a nicer one):
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-net@vger.kernel.org/msg01306.html

This is rather embarrasing, but apparently I left server/protocol.def out of
the patchset.  I could have sworn I tested these patches on a clean git, but
apparently I made a mistake.  Is there any chance that this mistake is the
reason for the rejection?  The additional code in these patches is only
utilized (sans a call to getsockopt) on UDP broadcast sockets that have been
bound to a specific interface.  According to the kernel devs, this behavior
is what IP_PKTINFO is meant to do and that they have no intention of adding
an additional feature that does exactly the same thing.

Erich Hoover
ehoover at mines.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/attachments/20091009/dbf351db/attachment.htm>