rtsol(d): add script for "M bit"

[bz]

Summary

While we do support the "O bit" running a script (usually to start a
dhcpv6 client) we have no options for setups which set the "M bit" for,
e.g., static address assignment as in EC2.

Duplicate most of the "O bit" logic to also start a script for the
"M bit" with the one difference: if the "M bit" is set we will not
start the script for the "O bit" as well (RFC 4861, Section 4.2).

Please not that the current implemention has the logic for run
"M script" and "O script" backwards it seems as I was too tired last
night. I'll update this soon. Meanwhile it would be good to know if
the idea and the implementation otherwise is sound.

[bz]

usr.sbin/rtsold/rtsol.c

308 ↗

(On Diff #75940)

This needs to move before the "O bit" handling and check before calling the script needs to move as well into the other block with the other variable.

usr.sbin/rtsold/rtsold.8

225 ↗

(On Diff #75940)

This needs to move to the Fl O section and check bits.

[markj]

usr.sbin/rtsold/rtsol.c

314 ↗

(On Diff #75940)

Typo, RFc

usr.sbin/rtsold/rtsold.c

355 ↗

(On Diff #75940)

Maybe future-proof it?

count = 0;
for (size_t i = 0; i < nitems(scripts); i++)
    if (scripts[i] != NULL)
        count++;

[bz]

Apply the changes suggested by @markj and myself.

[markj]

Looks ok to me with the nits fixed.

usr.sbin/rtsold/rtsol.c

309 ↗

(On Diff #76009)

There should be a newline before the comment.

314 ↗

(On Diff #76009)

Typo, "redundant."

[bz]

Anyone else comments? Otherwise I'll get it in no later than Tuesday.

[hrs]

In D26099#581086, @bz wrote:

Anyone else comments? Otherwise I'll get it in no later than Tuesday.

I will take a look in the next 12 hours.

[hrs]

Sorry for the delay. Looks good to me.

[bz]

In D26099#581614, @hrs wrote:

Sorry for the delay. Looks good to me.

Thanks @hrs and @markj for looking. Much appreciated!