From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 23 07:33:31 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA06329 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 07:33:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from cheops.anu.edu.au (avalon@cheops.anu.edu.au [150.203.76.24]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA06295 for ; Thu, 23 Apr 1998 07:33:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au) Message-Id: <199804231433.HAA06295@hub.freebsd.org> Received: by cheops.anu.edu.au (1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA146572026; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 00:33:46 +1000 From: Darren Reed Subject: Re: changing ipfw interface (was Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet ip_fw.c) To: eivind@yes.no (Eivind Eklund) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 00:33:46 +1000 (EST) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <19980423144259.57155@follo.net> from "Eivind Eklund" at Apr 23, 98 03:36:41 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In some mail from Eivind Eklund, sie said: > On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 10:12:54PM +1000, darrenr@reed.wattle.id.au wrote: > > In some email I received from Eivind Eklund, sie wrote: > > [...] > > > Well, what do you think? > > > > To me, it seems that it is effectively duplicating the BPF code, > > I don't understand why you see this change as really related to BPF. > This is _not_ in any way duplicating BPF - this is just another way of > passing the IPFW rules over the userland/kernel boundary. Well, to me, it looks like you're using a system call to tell IPFW in what order to examine X bytes, and making up a filter of a sequence of these commands, rather than giving it a complete rule. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message