Will this log disappear in the next kernel version ?
If it doesn't, I hope that the ethernet address of the sender will
be wrote into the log...
/usr/src/linux-2.1.126/net/ipv4/icmp.c
/*
* Handle ICMP_ADDRESS_MASK requests. (RFC950)
*
* RFC1122 (3.2.2.9). A host MUST only send replies to
* ADDRESS_MASK requests if it's been configured as an address mask
* agent. Receiving a request doesn't constitute implicit permission to
* act as one. Of course, implementing this correctly requires (SHOULD)
* a way to turn the functionality on and off. Another one for
sysctl(),
* I guess. -- MS
*
* RFC1812 (4.3.3.9). A router MUST implement it.
* A router SHOULD have switch turning it on/off.
* This switch MUST be ON by default.
*
* Gratuitous replies, zero-source replies are not implemented,
* that complies with RFC. DO NOT implement them!!! All the idea
* of broadcast addrmask replies as specified in RFC950 is broken.
* The problem is that it is not uncommon to have several prefixes
* on one physical interface. Moreover, addrmask agent can even be
* not aware of existing another prefixes.
* If source is zero, addrmask agent cannot choose correct prefix.
* Gratuitous mask announcements suffer from the same problem.
* RFC1812 explains it, but still allows to use ADDRMASK,
* that is pretty silly. --ANK
*
* All these rules are so bizarre, that I removed kernel addrmask
* support at all. It is wrong, it is obsolete, nobody uses it in
* any case. --ANK
*
* Furthermore you can do it with a usermode address agent program
* anyway...
*/
static void icmp_address(struct icmphdr *icmph, struct sk_buff *skb, int
len)
{
if (net_ratelimit())
printk(KERN_DEBUG "a guy asks for address mask. Who is
it?\n");
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/