Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 20:28:41 +1000 From: Da Rock <freebsd-hackers@herveybayaustralia.com.au> To: gljennjohn@googlemail.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, dudu@dudu.ro Subject: Re: [maybe spam] Re: linux PF_PACKET compatibility Message-ID: <4D5660D9.2040002@herveybayaustralia.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20110212103923.3098f6b3@ernst.jennejohn.org> References: <4D54E39D.1000505@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <4D54F0B0.7010503@freebsd.org> <4D550300.5090000@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <4D5565C7.1010809@freebsd.org> <4D55CE5A.8040902@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <4D55E015.3010709@freebsd.org> <20110212103923.3098f6b3@ernst.jennejohn.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/12/11 19:39, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:19:17 -0800 > Julian Elischer<julian@freebsd.org> wrote: > > >> On 2/11/11 4:03 PM, Da Rock wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately this software uses this family instead of pcap or bpf. >>> So when built it errors. >>> >>> I guess if I am to use this app I will have to rewrite the way it >>> uses the network stack. >>> >> l2tp runs over UDP packets (port 1701 (like the starship enterprise)) >> I have no idea why they want raw packets. >> >> > Ther's a sendarp() routine which uses PF_PACKET to directly access the > network driver and bypass the stack. Lazy Linuxers who have no idea > or don't care that other operating systems exist. > > Indeed. Is it possible to leverage another compatible routine? I haven't had a look yet as I just read the message, but can I (after checking return values and arguments) just drop in another arp routine? Or are they simply incompatible across the board? From what I understand they should all be essentially doing the same thing, but I could be wrong on this. Alternatively would I have to basically rewrite the arp.c to be posix compatible (for portability)? Cheers
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4D5660D9.2040002>