From owner-freebsd-security Thu Feb 4 17:30:53 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA28115 for freebsd-security-outgoing; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:30:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from nomad.dataplex.net (nomad.dataplex.net [208.2.87.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA28110 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 17:30:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rkw@dataplex.net) Received: from localhost (rkw@localhost) by nomad.dataplex.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA02879; Thu, 4 Feb 1999 19:30:28 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rkw@dataplex.net) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 19:30:28 -0600 (CST) From: Richard Wackerbarth To: Sheldon Hearn cc: James Wyatt , Chris Larsen , security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Enabling bpf device in kernel (was: Re: tcpdump) In-Reply-To: <56329.918141508@axl.noc.iafrica.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > What I was getting at is that bpf-less kernels gain something specific > which I believe is of very little benefit to the only people who might > not turn bpf off themselves. OTOH, bpf-less kernels will totally stop an ever-growing population who require it. I would opt for putting in bpf just as we put all kinds of NIC drivers that are (to most people) worthless. -- But critical to the few who need it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message