Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 27 Jun 2001 14:30:42 -0500
From:      Alfred Perlstein <bright@sneakerz.org>
To:        Stuart Eichert <seichert@coopcomp.com>
Cc:        net@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Am I missing something?
Message-ID:  <20010627143042.F74703@sneakerz.org>
In-Reply-To: <20010627111222.A9434@gourdy.coopcomp.com>; from seichert@coopcomp.com on Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 11:12:22AM -0700
References:  <20010627111222.A9434@gourdy.coopcomp.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Stuart Eichert <seichert@coopcomp.com> [010627 13:12] wrote:
> In the past (under FreeBSD 3.0 and 3.3) I implemented a new networking
> protocol, that ran over Ethernet(and nothing else for that matter).  I
> put a new ETHERTYPE into ethernet.h(0x0801 for the record).  In addition
> I modified the switch statements in if_ethersubr.c:ether_output and 
> if_ethersubr.c:ether_input to recognize this type and act accordingly.
> In addition I modified sys/socket.h to add an additional address family
> and protocol family for my protocol.  From there I implemented the protocol
> in a separate directory, made some changes in the conf directory and then
> I was able to compile a new kernel with support for my protocol.  
> 
> This is cool and all (and yes I have updated it to work in 4.3), but I don't
> like the idea that anyone who wants to try out this protocol and any associated
> programs has to recompile an entire kernel.  I would much prefer to create
> a kernel module that someone can load, test, and then unload.  I don't think
> that I can do this however, because of the ethernet routines in if_ethersubr.c.
> These routines do not allow for the dynamic addition of new ETHERTYPES.
> I guess one could screw around with netgraph or tap(though I really know next
> to nothing about them), but that would not allow me to plug the protocol
> in below the socket layer.  
> 
> Is there no way to make a kernel module that will allow for the
> dynamic addition of ethernet protocols or am I just missing something?

Why not provide a patch that allows one to add callbacks to the list?

for ether_output under the default case you would walk the list
looking for your type, since for the most part packets will be in
AF_INET and when no callbacks are registered the array will be
short, transmit should be cheap.  For recieve if you look in
the default case you can see ng_ether_input_orphan_p being used to
input packets that don't match a known type.

-Alfred

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010627143042.F74703>