From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 21 16:12:10 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A32916A4D1; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:12:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (Odin.AC.HMC.Edu [134.173.32.75]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E9343D1F; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:12:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from brdavis@odin.ac.hmc.edu) Received: from odin.ac.hmc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i8LGEKR4023672; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:14:21 -0700 Received: (from brdavis@localhost) by odin.ac.hmc.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0/Submit) id i8LGEKi4023671; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:14:20 -0700 Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 09:14:20 -0700 From: Brooks Davis To: Max Laier , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-standards@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20040921161420.GA17290@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <200409200250.49518.max@love2party.net> <20040921100220.GC842@empiric.icir.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040921100220.GC842@empiric.icir.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.0 required=8.0 tests=SUSPICIOUS_RECIPS autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on odin.ac.hmc.edu Subject: Re: Global (non _KERNEL) place for sockaddr_union? X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 16:12:11 -0000 --k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 03:02:20AM -0700, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 02:50:40AM +0200, Max Laier wrote: > > My question now is, what would be a good place to define this? Are ther= e any=20 > > fromal standarts that might define it already? (Couldn't find anything)= Is=20 > > there anything else that I must consider? >=20 > I think Brooks' recommendation is sound and should probably be followed > as it's fairly close to my original recommendation to you in private. >=20 > The problem is that the definition of the union depends on what you wish > to use it for, and which address families are visible to the application > or kernel module which is using the definition. The real problem may be that KAME mistakenly gave sockaddr_union a general name when it isn't and such a type would be hell to actually work with. A custom union that does exactly what pf needs may be the best approach. -- Brooks --=20 Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 --k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBUFNcXY6L6fI4GtQRAmqKAKDCDS6aW5tOLvwi5OE7cOny3qj6xgCfRBDr 0QaUauCEGn2Ij3DHL0SBPwg= =5V32 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --k+w/mQv8wyuph6w0--