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).
+ /* 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.
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. Cheers, b.