From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Jul 30 13:45:12 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from ns.mt.sri.com (ns.mt.sri.com [206.127.79.91])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9573A14C58
	for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 13:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from nate@mt.sri.com)
Received: from mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100])
	by ns.mt.sri.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA08787;
	Fri, 30 Jul 1999 14:44:15 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from nate@rocky.mt.sri.com)
Received: by mt.sri.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id OAA14297; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 14:44:14 -0600
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 14:44:14 -0600
Message-Id: <199907302044.OAA14297@mt.sri.com>
From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com>
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: So, back on the topic of enabling bpf in GENERIC...
In-Reply-To: <8442.933363979@zippy.cdrom.com>
References: <8442.933363979@zippy.cdrom.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> This is a clear security vs functionality issue and I need to get a
> good feel for which "cause" is ascendent here in knowing which way to
> jump on the matter.  Can we now hear the closing arguments from the
> pro and con folks?

I thought we decided that the networking gurus we're going to make it
possible to send out broadcast packets on an unconfigured interface so
that DHCP would work, so that bpf wasn't required.

I thought that was the over-riding reason for adding bpf to the kernel.
Otherwise, BPF is mostly (completely) un-necessary for general purpose
computing machines.


Nate


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message