From owner-freebsd-net  Tue May 30 14:56: 2 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from bubba.whistle.com (bubba.whistle.com [207.76.205.7])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A96637B578
	for <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 30 May 2000 14:56:00 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from archie@whistle.com)
Received: (from archie@localhost)
	by bubba.whistle.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id OAA00803;
	Tue, 30 May 2000 14:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com>
Message-Id: <200005302155.OAA00803@bubba.whistle.com>
Subject: Re: BPF fix to if_loop.c
In-Reply-To: <7130.959686610@lychee.itojun.org> from Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino at "May 30, 2000 08:36:50 pm"
To: itojun@iijlab.net (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 14:55:26 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (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

Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino writes:
> >	The following one-liner avoids junk (non-matching DLT_xx encapsulation)
> >	to be injected to bpf, non-loopback ifp is passed to if_simloop.
> >-	if (ifp->if_bpf) {
> >+	if (ifp->if_bpf && ifp->if_flags & IFF_LOOPBACK) {
> 
> 	sorry this was incorrect.  however, I think there should be check
> 	if ifp really wants DLT_NULL encapsulation or not.

Hmm.. maybe a better fix is to remove this BPF section altogether.. ?
It's only going to result in showing the same packet twice, right?

-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