Re: [PATCH 1/3] Added net_bootp6 command

[Michael Chang]

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 09:26:06AM +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> В Tue, 12 May 2015 16:49:48 +0800
> Michael Chang <address@hidden> пишет:
> 
> > The net_bootp6 is used to configure the ipv6 network interface through the
> > DHCPv6 protocol Solict/Advertise/Request/Reply.
> > ---
> >  grub-core/net/bootp.c |  895 
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  grub-core/net/ip.c    |   35 ++
> >  include/grub/net.h    |   19 +
> >  3 files changed, 948 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/grub-core/net/bootp.c b/grub-core/net/bootp.c
> > index 6136755..5c5eb6f 100644
> > --- a/grub-core/net/bootp.c
> > +++ b/grub-core/net/bootp.c
> > @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@
> >  #include <grub/net/netbuff.h>
> >  #include <grub/net/udp.h>
> >  #include <grub/datetime.h>
> > +#include <grub/time.h>
> > +#include <grub/list.h>
> >  
> >  static void
> >  parse_dhcp_vendor (const char *name, const void *vend, int limit, int 
> > *mask)
> > @@ -256,6 +258,646 @@ grub_net_configure_by_dhcp_ack (const char *name,
> >    return inter;
> >  }
> >  
> > +struct grub_dhcpv6_option {
> > +  grub_uint16_t code;
> > +  grub_uint16_t len;
> 
> Won't do; options in packet are unaligned (see below) so you have to
> walk byte buffer using get_unaligned and

I don't get it. Wouldn't the structure attribute GRUB_PACKED do the
trick for us?

> 
> grub_uint8_t code[2]
> grub_uint8_t len[2]
> 
> > +  grub_uint8_t data[0];
> > +} GRUB_PACKED;
> > +
> > +
> > +struct grub_dhcpv6_iana_option {
> > +  grub_uint32_t iaid;
> > +  grub_uint32_t t1;
> > +  grub_uint32_t t2;
> > +  grub_uint8_t data[0];
> > +} GRUB_PACKED;
> > +
> > +struct grub_dhcpv6_iaaddr_option {
> > +  grub_uint8_t addr[16];
> > +  grub_uint32_t preferred_lifetime;
> > +  grub_uint32_t valid_lifetime;
> > +  grub_uint8_t data[0];
> > +} GRUB_PACKED;
> > +
> > +struct grub_DUID_LL
> > +{
> > +  grub_uint16_t type;
> > +  grub_uint16_t hw_type;
> > +  grub_uint8_t hwaddr[6];
> > +} GRUB_PACKED;
> > +
> 
> Probably the same applies to all option definitions.

That would require quite a lot of rewritting basically. (So I'd like it
to be clear to me in the first).

Thanks,
Michael