Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:48:03 -0600 From: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org>, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>, Xin LI <delphij@freebsd.org> Cc: "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: lost change 272451 - CAP_EVENT for tcpdump (Re: svn commit: r276788 - in head: contrib/tcpdump contrib/tcpdump/lbl contrib/tcpdump/missing usr.sbin/tcpdump/tcpdump Message-ID: <54D3D703.7020405@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <54D3CE82.2050204@FreeBSD.org> References: <CA%2BhQ2%2BiDa4fn2bzbLk87Amp8aZxf1HJvEZ-T9vFwCuBFoPxvmQ@mail.gmail.com> <54D3CE82.2050204@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On 2/5/2015 2:11 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > On 02/05/15 13:30, Luigi Rizzo wrote: >> Hi, >> the update to tcpdump 4.6.2 also lost svn272451 and 272653 (addition of >> CAP_EVENT to the capabilities given to tcpdump). >> >> Given this and the other bug fixed in 277638, I am not sure if there >> are other local changes that have been lost in the merge. >> Also I wonder whether there is something we should have done >> differently when applying local changes to code in contrib/ to make >> sure that the merge from vendor does not overwrite them ? >> >> cheers >> luigi > > FWIW, I think what happened here is that upstream merged > our capsicum changes only partially and the corresponding clash > made it difficult to understand what came from where. > > If our local changes are too big and upstream is very active, > this complexity is unavoidable but it is always good to try to > upstream all that we can, and the tcpdump maintainers have > been rather open to taking changes. > > Cheers, > > Pedro. I've been sitting on a change for a while that I don't think upstream can take. https://people.freebsd.org/~bdrewery/patches/tcpdump-pflog-uid.diff is a version of the patch. I'm not sure if it was my final one. I would need to test again before committing. The problem is that pf is implemented differently on FreeBSD and OpenBSD for pid/uid tracking. The code would be overly complex to support both and I gave up on that. Even getting it to work on FreeBSD required the _KERNEL define hack for UID_MAX, which our pf uses to note 'no uid value'. I was considering committing this, but was not sure on the proper way to note our changes. #if __FreeBSD__ was my guess. -- Regards, Bryan Drewery [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU09cDAAoJEDXXcbtuRpfPceIH/RoWKyUkWIc6nwG4o6L/sIxH ceQLrN9PKObZ2DQfWKKL069xk2J0XZZrxfjHaR+fdWWRcfT+TYIAOiOijpGmp9D7 O28dbZL0byPeVye/6ySlbV7VtL6i98v6dEUiTpHebeYYuGWmmZQCFLVIe+AVRlc7 wgU0svS0v0psg5YVsfTHz2mqm6SAimJWmCi37dViKkjWEXmo75X+/cm5s2cLCU1+ u7CGBMoLRleRX330+d92jHrvzH0SL0u930q4s/X/Oj8LZTeAk3pBt/4dU9RGYF76 BG1IlaJMjtoYAdXduSRTm+fFbK0nKvgCX6f2P5cYVfx5upagxDuzij57NDPl7Bw= =9T/E -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54D3D703.7020405>