[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110317005806.GA18889@drozd.smutek.pl>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 01:58:06 +0100
From: Piotr Meyer <aniou@...tek.pl>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: VLANs in Owl way?
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 03:11:04AM +0300, Solar Designer wrote:
> Are you saying that the lines that you're commenting out were dead code
> before your change, because GATEWAY and GATEWAYDEV were never(?) set by
> that point?
Not exactly - the code provides support for GATEWAY (without GATEWAYDEV)
settings in ifcfg-*, but I don't remember if I even seen similar config
in real world. This is fragment of original code:
[...]
# this is broken! it's only here for compatibility with old RH systems
if [ "${GATEWAY}" != "" -a "${GATEWAY}" != "none" ]; then
route add default gw ${GATEWAY} metric 1 ${DEVICE}
fi
. /etc/sysconfig/network
if [ "${GATEWAYDEV}" = "" -o "${GATEWAYDEV}" = "${DEVICE}" ]; then
# set up default gateway
if [ "${GATEWAY}" != "" ]; then
route add default gw ${GATEWAY} ${DEVICE}
DEFGW=${GATEWAY}
elif [ "${GATEWAYDEV}" = "${DEVICE}" ]; then
route add default ${DEVICE}
fi
fi
[...]
As you see - /etc/sysconfig/network is included after 'broken' code and
GATEWAY may be set only in ifcfg-* interface config. It is even mentioned
in sysconfig.txt (additional GATEWAY parameter in interface session, I
miss it before).
'Normal' gateway is set in next session, after including /etc/sysconfig/network.
I can preserve this code even without ipcalc comparisons, if it is necessary,
but I'm not sure that is worth it.
> Have you tested your patched scripts on a system that does _not_ use
> VLANs - that is, on a system with just a very basic networking config
> (such as what "settle" produces)?
I make additional tests and wrote report, ok?
--
Piotr 'aniou' Meyer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
