From owner-freebsd-net  Fri Jun  4 17:30: 2 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from bubba.whistle.com (s205m7.whistle.com [207.76.205.7])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 87EBE14DAA; Fri,  4 Jun 1999 17:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from archie@whistle.com)
Received: (from archie@localhost)
	by bubba.whistle.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) id RAA85352;
	Fri, 4 Jun 1999 17:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com>
Message-Id: <199906050029.RAA85352@bubba.whistle.com>
Subject: Re: subtle SIOCGIFCONF bug
In-Reply-To: <199906050023.UAA12466@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> from Garrett Wollman at "Jun 4, 99 08:23:48 pm"
To: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman)
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 17:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL38 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

Garrett Wollman writes:
> >   Should the kernel insure that ifr->ifr_addr.sa_len is always at
> >   least sizeof(ifr->ifr_addr), or should the user programs adjust
> >   their pointer increment algorithm? At first I assumed the latter
> >   answer (patches below) but now am not so sure.
> 
> The user programs should not use SIOCGIFCONF.

I was hoping for a little more information than that.

OK, imagine a world where you had no choice. THEN what would the answer be?

In other words, I'd like to fix the problem but I don't have time to
rewrite arp, natd, route, etc.

-Archie

___________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs   *   Whistle Communications, Inc.  *   http://www.whistle.com


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