Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 14 Dec 1999 16:32:26 -0700
From:      Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
To:        Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>
Cc:        Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, brian@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org
Subject:   Re: The if_detach problem 
Message-ID:  <199912142332.QAA56248@harmony.village.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Dec 1999 23:22:15 GMT." <199912142322.XAA36949@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> 
References:  <199912142322.XAA36949@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org>  

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199912142322.XAA36949@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> Brian Somers writes:
: Right, but how about a ``notthere'' flag instead ?

My concern is that the notthere flag won't be used all the time.
Also, with if_detach deletes the memory, which is what fubars the
routing tables and the like.  There's not a place to hang a not there
flag.

: My concern is that there are some APIs that use interface ids 
: (sysctl(PF_ROUTE) springs to mind) and some APIs that use 
: interface names (the struct ifaliasreq ioctls etc) and reassigning 
: the association between the two on the fly seems a tad dangerous - 
: lots of races.

There are already lots of races :-)

: Another (more real?) argument for keeping the interface but making it 
: unusable 'till the driver wants it again is that there may be 
: security concerns....  at the moment, ``netstat -i'' reports what's 
: been going on very nicely.  Removing the interface entirely will 
: allow people to hide what should not be hidden....

We're talking about a driver which can call if_detach() when it goes
away.  I'm not sure how to tie that to the netstat -i...  When the
interface is gone, it is gone, never to return.

Warner




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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199912142332.QAA56248>