Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:53:59 -0700 From: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> To: "Christian S.J. Peron" <csjp@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/ipfw ipfw2.c Message-ID: <20040911235359.GC72089@funkthat.com> In-Reply-To: <200409111944.i8BJiTe7005412@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200409111944.i8BJiTe7005412@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Christian S.J. Peron wrote this message on Sat, Sep 11, 2004 at 19:44 +0000:
> Currently when ipfw(8) generates the micro-instructions for rules which
> contain O_UID, O_GID and O_JAIL opcodes, the F_NOT or F_OR logical
> operator bits get clobbered. Making it impossible to use the ``NOT'' or
> ``OR'' operators with uid, gid and jail based constraints.
>
> The ipfw_insn instruction template contains a ``len'' element which
> stores two pieces of information, the size of the instruction
> (in 32-bit words) in the low 6 bits of "len" with the 2 remaining
> bits to implement OR and NOT.
Why don't we use the bit field?
u_int8_t logic : 2;
u_int8_t len : 8;
considering this is already used by the enum.. It'd make bugs like
these less likely...
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040911235359.GC72089>