Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 19:32:06 -0400 From: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfw rules vs routes to localhost? Message-ID: <20030528233206.GA10255@pit.databus.com> In-Reply-To: <20030528222852.GD3907@blossom.cjclark.org> References: <20030528045154.GA95572@mail.it.ca> <20030528210359.GA3907@blossom.cjclark.org> <20030528214046.GA9084@pit.databus.com> <20030528222852.GD3907@blossom.cjclark.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 03:28:52PM -0700, Crist J. Clark wrote: > > Writing something that uses pfil(9) might also be a lightweight way to > do this. Hmm, yes. But the problem of communicating the table to the kernel remains. Is there a natural BSD way to have a block of memory mapped both to kernel and user space? With SVR4 Streams, I'd probably use an ioctl to communicate. -- Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030528233206.GA10255>