From owner-freebsd-security Sun Sep 19 21:27:59 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mail.xmission.com (mail.xmission.com [198.60.22.22]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9E9156DB for ; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 21:27:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from [204.68.178.39] (helo=softweyr.com) by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 11Sv2z-0007S2-00; Sun, 19 Sep 1999 22:27:25 -0600 Message-ID: <37E5B7AB.58601187@softweyr.com> Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 22:27:23 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 3.1-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Matthew Dillon , "Rodney W. Grimes" , Warner Losh , Liam Slusser , Kenny Drobnack , "Harry M. Leitzell" , security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BPF on in 3.3-RC GENERIC kernel References: <14489.937722438@critter.freebsd.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message <199909190551.WAA68627@apollo.backplane.com>, Matthew Dillon writes: > > > It is especially important that system calls be constructed with > > future binary compatibility issues in mind, especially if they > > become widely adopted. > > You have not proved or even shown that changing this particular > element will be enough to guarantee that we can support other > protocols in the future. No, but he has argued that it is inappropriate to pass an IP address as a 32-bit int, even if it is intended ONLY for IPv4. I have to agree with that. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message