Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 00:39:55 -0700 From: David Greenman <dg@root.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>, imp@village.org (Warner Losh), liam@tiora.net (Liam Slusser), kdrobnac@mission.mvnc.edu (Kenny Drobnack), Harry_M_Leitzell@cmu.edu (Harry M. Leitzell), security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BPF on in 3.3-RC GENERIC kernel Message-ID: <199909190739.AAA20828@implode.root.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 19 Sep 1999 08:53:06 %2B0200." <14672.937723986@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Would be nice if there was something there for compatilibity when this finally does occur, however. -DG David Greenman Co-founder/Principal Architect, The FreeBSD Project - http://www.freebsd.org Creator of high-performance Internet servers - http://www.terasolutions.com Pave the road of life with opportunities. >Final email from here: > >Matt, you have not done anything to show that changing the ip_number >field to a sockaddr will be enough to support IPv6 or any other >protocol in the future. Remember that IPv4 is a very simple >protocol, most others are not, in particular IPv6 it seems. > >I do not see a reason to change an interface which is already >deployed, and which have been so for more than 1.5 years, "just in >case it might be enough to support IPv6." > >I will therefore not make any changes to the jail(2) syscalls >arguments until such time as we know what arguments will actually >be needed for jail(2) under IPv6, or any other protocol for that >matter. > >Poul-Henning > >In message <199909190634.XAA68995@apollo.backplane.com>, Matthew Dillon writes: >> >>: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. >>: >>:The only thing that can be done to the jail(2) syscall to improve >>:it in that respect is to add a version number as the first element, >>:I would have no problem with that. >>: >>:-- >>:Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member >> >> Well, I see it quite differently. I believe I have given ample >> justification for asking that the system call be cleaned up before it >> is exposed to wider use. You're making a blanket comments saying >> "Matt hasn't proved..." and not even trying to address the issues >> brought up doesn't really pull any weight with me. Try addressing >> the issues that were brought up instead. >> >> -Matt >> Matthew Dillon >> <dillon@backplane.com> >> >> >>To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >>with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message >> > >-- >Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member >phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." >FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199909190739.AAA20828>