Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:47:19 +0100 From: Ceri <ceri@techsupport.co.uk> To: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> Cc: Ceri <ceri@techsupport.co.uk>, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Berkeley packet filter Message-ID: <20011001124719.C26621@cartman.private.techsupport.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20011001212219.J482@k7.mavetju.org>; from edwin@mavetju.org on Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:22:19PM %2B1000 References: <20011001010827.A18339@linus.highpoint.edu> <20011001095648.B1780@cartman.private.techsupport.co.uk> <20011001212219.J482@k7.mavetju.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:22:19PM +1000, Edwin Groothuis said: > On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:56:48AM +0100, Ceri wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:08:27AM -0400, Zach Hartley said: > > > I was looking through the GENERIC kernel configuration and noticed that it > > > enables bpf by default, but warns the user to "be aware of the > > > administrative consequences of this". So I was wondering, if its something > > > to be worried about, why is it in GENERIC? Also, do I need it for anything? > > > > IIRC, GENERIC warns you to be wary of the consequences of _disabling_ bpf. > > # The `bpf' pseudo-device enables the Berkeley Packet Filter. Be > # aware of the legal and administrative consequences of enabling this > # option. ... > > What it probably means is that you shouldn't use the bpf to snoop > the traffic on your LAN unless you're allowed to do it. Sorry, I was mistaken. It was my own kernel config file which warns against the consequences of disabling it! Ceri -- I can please only one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011001124719.C26621>