From owner-freebsd-security Sun Sep 19 0:43:35 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from implode.root.com (root.com [209.102.106.178]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6533E14CBB for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:43:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dg@implode.root.com) Received: from implode.root.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by implode.root.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA20828; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199909190739.AAA20828@implode.root.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Matthew Dillon , "Rodney W. Grimes" , imp@village.org (Warner Losh), liam@tiora.net (Liam Slusser), kdrobnac@mission.mvnc.edu (Kenny Drobnack), Harry_M_Leitzell@cmu.edu (Harry M. Leitzell), security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BPF on in 3.3-RC GENERIC kernel In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 19 Sep 1999 08:53:06 +0200." <14672.937723986@critter.freebsd.dk> From: David Greenman Reply-To: dg@root.com Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:39:55 -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Would be nice if there was something there for compatilibity when this finally does occur, however. -DG David Greenman Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org Creator of high-performance Internet servers - http://www.terasolutions.com Pave the road of life with opportunities. >Final email from here: > >Matt, you have not done anything to show that changing the ip_number >field to a sockaddr will be enough to support IPv6 or any other >protocol in the future. Remember that IPv4 is a very simple >protocol, most others are not, in particular IPv6 it seems. > >I do not see a reason to change an interface which is already >deployed, and which have been so for more than 1.5 years, "just in >case it might be enough to support IPv6." > >I will therefore not make any changes to the jail(2) syscalls >arguments until such time as we know what arguments will actually >be needed for jail(2) under IPv6, or any other protocol for that >matter. > >Poul-Henning > >In message <199909190634.XAA68995@apollo.backplane.com>, Matthew Dillon writes: >> >>:You have not proved or even shown that changing this particular >>:element will be enough to guarantee that we can support other >>:protocols in the future. >>: >>:The only thing that can be done to the jail(2) syscall to improve >>:it in that respect is to add a version number as the first element, >>:I would have no problem with that. >>: >>:-- >>:Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member >> >> Well, I see it quite differently. I believe I have given ample >> justification for asking that the system call be cleaned up before it >> is exposed to wider use. You're making a blanket comments saying >> "Matt hasn't proved..." and not even trying to address the issues >> brought up doesn't really pull any weight with me. Try addressing >> the issues that were brought up instead. >> >> -Matt >> Matthew Dillon >> >> >> >>To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >>with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message >> > >-- >Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member >phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." >FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message