svn commit: r345192 - head/sys/net

[Kyle Evans]

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:14 PM Kristof Provost <kp at freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> On 2019-03-15 17:13:05 (+0000), Kyle Evans <kevans at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> > Author: kevans
> > Date: Fri Mar 15 17:13:05 2019
> > New Revision: 345192
> > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/345192
> >
> > Log:
> >   if_bridge(4): Drop pointless rtflush
> >
> >   At this point, all routes should've already been dropped by removing all
> >   members from the bridge. This condition is in-fact KASSERT'd in the line
> >   immediately above where this nop flush was added.
> >
> > Modified:
> >   head/sys/net/if_bridge.c
> >
> > Modified: head/sys/net/if_bridge.c
> > ==============================================================================
> > --- head/sys/net/if_bridge.c  Fri Mar 15 17:04:33 2019        (r345191)
> > +++ head/sys/net/if_bridge.c  Fri Mar 15 17:13:05 2019        (r345192)
> > @@ -2449,6 +2449,22 @@ bridge_input(struct ifnet *ifp, struct mbuf *m)
> >               }                                                       \
> >               m->m_pkthdr.rcvif = iface;                              \
> >               BRIDGE_UNLOCK(sc);                                      \
> > +             /*                                                      \
> > +              * These mbufs will not have another chance to get sent \
> > +              * to bpf elsewhere in the stack as being received      \
> > +              * by this interface, because they are coming in over   \
> > +              * the bridge.  They likely have been accounted for     \
> > +              * when received by the interface that they came from,  \
> > +              * but this is not enough for other consumers,          \
> > +              * e.g. dhclient, to be satisfied.                      \
> > +              *                                                      \
> > +              * rcvif needs to be set on the mbuf here, lest we risk \
> > +              * losing the mbuf as a "duplicate" because it's        \
> > +              * considered outgoing by bpf.                          \
> > +              */                                                     \
> > +             if ((iface)->if_type != IFT_BRIDGE &&                   \
> > +                 (iface)->if_bpf != NULL && (iface) != (ifp))         \
> > +                     ETHER_BPF_MTAP(iface, m);                       \
>
> I think you didn't intend to commit this yet.
>

*sigh* wrong tree. =(