From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Dec 14 15:32:53 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.yes.no (ns1.yes.no [195.204.136.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A5631533F for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:32:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from eivind@bitbox.follo.net) Received: from bitbox.follo.net (bitbox.follo.net [195.204.143.218]) by ns1.yes.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA09926 for ; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:32:46 +0100 (CET) Received: (from eivind@localhost) by bitbox.follo.net (8.8.8/8.8.6) id AAA66791 for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 00:32:46 +0100 (MET) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07083152EA for ; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:32:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA73700; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 16:32:27 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id QAA56248; Tue, 14 Dec 1999 16:32:26 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199912142332.QAA56248@harmony.village.org> To: Brian Somers Subject: Re: The if_detach problem Cc: Jonathan Lemon , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 14 Dec 1999 23:22:15 GMT." <199912142322.XAA36949@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> References: <199912142322.XAA36949@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 16:32:26 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <199912142322.XAA36949@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> Brian Somers writes: : Right, but how about a ``notthere'' flag instead ? My concern is that the notthere flag won't be used all the time. Also, with if_detach deletes the memory, which is what fubars the routing tables and the like. There's not a place to hang a not there flag. : My concern is that there are some APIs that use interface ids : (sysctl(PF_ROUTE) springs to mind) and some APIs that use : interface names (the struct ifaliasreq ioctls etc) and reassigning : the association between the two on the fly seems a tad dangerous - : lots of races. There are already lots of races :-) : Another (more real?) argument for keeping the interface but making it : unusable 'till the driver wants it again is that there may be : security concerns.... at the moment, ``netstat -i'' reports what's : been going on very nicely. Removing the interface entirely will : allow people to hide what should not be hidden.... We're talking about a driver which can call if_detach() when it goes away. I'm not sure how to tie that to the netstat -i... When the interface is gone, it is gone, never to return. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message