svn commit: r304436 - in head: . sys/netinet

[Slawa Olhovchenkov]

On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 12:36:58PM -0400, Ryan Stone wrote:

> + adrian@, who prompted me to look at UDP in the first place
> 
> 
> I'm really not sure what my next step should be.  I'm willing to revert
> r304436, but I really don't want to revert r304437 because we've seen
> crashes in the real world due to the missing locking.  Unfortunately,
> reverting r304436 would mean that every UDP packet would incur the overhead
> of an additional rlock/runlock call, which is what I've been trying to
> avoid.  I don't see a particularly good path forward.

As I understund specific handling of broadcast required only for
routers (by RFC1812).
For host enought have [hidden] alias with broadcsts bits.
Anyway, don't should relay on the L2 information, you can recive L3
unicast addressed packets (with alien dst IP address) in L2 broadcas
packet.

Sorry if I am miss something in you discurs.