Fix up some comments in IPv6 tethering code.
Bug: 30298058 Change-Id: Icc99e772898b8303d8f2f8521784e2cb5c2afacc
This commit is contained in:
@ -169,7 +169,9 @@ class IPv6TetheringInterfaceServices {
|
||||
// We need to be able to send unicast RAs, and clients might
|
||||
// like to ping the default router's link-local address. Note
|
||||
// that we never remove the link-local route from the network
|
||||
// until Tethering disables tethering on the interface.
|
||||
// until Tethering disables tethering on the interface. We
|
||||
// only need to add the link-local prefix once, but in the
|
||||
// event we add it more than once netd silently ignores EEXIST.
|
||||
addedPrefixes.add(LINK_LOCAL_PREFIX);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@ -177,7 +179,9 @@ class IPv6TetheringInterfaceServices {
|
||||
final ArrayList<RouteInfo> toBeAdded = getLocalRoutesFor(addedPrefixes);
|
||||
try {
|
||||
// It's safe to call addInterfaceToLocalNetwork() even if
|
||||
// the interface is already in the local_network.
|
||||
// the interface is already in the local_network. Note also
|
||||
// that adding routes that already exist does not cause an
|
||||
// error (EEXIST is silently ignored).
|
||||
mNMService.addInterfaceToLocalNetwork(mIfName, toBeAdded);
|
||||
} catch (RemoteException e) {
|
||||
Log.e(TAG, "Failed to add IPv6 routes to local table: ", e);
|
||||
|
@ -552,7 +552,7 @@ public class RouterAdvertisementDaemon {
|
||||
for (Inet6Address dns : dnses) {
|
||||
// NOTE: If the full of list DNS servers doesn't fit in the packet,
|
||||
// this code will cause a buffer overflow and the RA won't include
|
||||
// include this instance of the option at all.
|
||||
// this instance of the option at all.
|
||||
//
|
||||
// TODO: Consider looking at ra.remaining() to determine how many
|
||||
// DNS servers will fit, and adding only those.
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user