On 12/11/2012 07:05 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On 12-12-11 06:24 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
Thanks! NP. Had it just lying around here anyway. :-)
Comment should now mention 4 rules. Doh! Missed that in the patch port. Updated in my local copy (which I will of course resend once all of the initial review is done).
The one thing I would ask beyond Eric's suggestions is that you use git send-email to produce the patches - the patch you've sent doesn't apply with git am, which would make it a pain to properly attribute to you. If you're unfamiliar with using git, here's what you would do: 1) git clone git://libvirt.org/libvirt.git 2) cd libvirt 3) edit the files. 4) make check && make syntax-check (and fix any problems they find) 4) git add $list-of-files 5) git commit (give a nice descriptive log message with subject of "network: support mDNS on NAT networks") 6) git send-email -1 (tell it to send to libvir-list@redhat.com) I can then directly apply the patch with git am.
+ /* exempt multicast traffic */ + if (iptablesAddForwardMasqueradeExempt(driver->iptables) < 0) { + virReportError(VIR_ERR_SYSTEM_ERROR, + _("failed to add iptables rule to exempt multicast traffic from masquerading")); Indentation is a bit off, OK. Fixed (again, locally).
and you need a "%s" argument to keep the syntax-checker happy about a message with no other % operand. Hrm. There is no argument to substitute into a %s though. There appear to be lots of other "virReportError()" calls with no %s in them if there is no argument such as:
virReportError(VIR_ERR_SYSTEM_ERROR, forwardIf ? _("failed to add iptables rule to enable masquerading to %s") : _("failed to add iptables rule to enable masquerading"), forwardIf);
Notice if forwardIf is NULL, it will use the:
_("failed to add iptables rule to enable masquerading"),
branch. Of course I could be missing something.
I'm surprised that doesn't generate a compile error, other cases of _() with no %whatever will. It must be the ?: that's messing up the compiler's checking. At any rate, that should be fixed (separate from your patch though, of course)
Do we need an IPv6 counterpart? (Or am I just showing my ignorance of what IPv6 does as a counterpart to IPv4 multicast?) Hrm. I wouldn't think so. NAT (which is what masquerading is) isn't supposed to exist in IPv6. Billions of addresses and all that. :-) Unless my understanding is incorrect that is.
Well, there is now at least a proposal for some sort of IPv6 NAT, but libvirt networks only do routed IPv6 networks, so it shouldn't be necessary.