Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 11:01:55 -0700 (PDT) From: brooks@one-eyed-alien.net To: Christopher Sedore <cmsedore@mailbox.syr.edu> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: changes to ether_output() Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.9906171049240.29763-100000@orion.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.4.10.9906170638260.29737-100000@rodan.syr.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Jun 1999, Christopher Sedore wrote: > I filed a kernel bug report about this early this year. This is a bug in > the BPF implementation on FreeBSD (at least this was the consensus of > those who reacted when I posted about it). If you look in the gnats pages > you'll find my report and a patch to fix bpf. I don't remember the code > well enough to envision what your patch does, but you might want to look > over mine just to see what I did (it didn't look to me like you fixed bpf, > but maybe I'm missing that). It looks like they should both work. The difference is that your patch changes bpf to use AF_LINK and adds handling code and mine changes the way AF_UNSPEC is implemented so that the provided ethernet header is actually used. One could argue that if you pass in an ethernet header, you should be able to expect it is acutally used. On the other hand, one could argue that unless you tell the system you want to communicate at the link layer, it shouldn't let you mess with your link layer settings. Does anyone know what the historical answer would be? -- Brooks To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.05.9906171049240.29763-100000>