Subject: Re: IP Firewalling and IP Filetering
To: matthew green <email@example.com>
From: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/10/1996 23:00:20
On Tue, 11 Jun 1996 14:20:33 +1000
matthew green <email@example.com> wrote:
> i.e., in using if_unit & if_name, one might assume that "le" #0 and "le" #1
> are somehow related.
> who cares if they are related ? "Maybe I'm Missing Something ..."
And, really, it's probably wrong to assume they have any relationship at
all. But, like Matt said "Maybe I'm Missing Something ..."
> The implication of "if_xname" is that the number for the interface is
> not needed to indentify an interface, an interesting concept but is it
> really that much of a problem that we want to make portability of
> applications that much harder ? (any programs like netstat will have to be
> altered to deal with this, for example).
> what does it matter what the interface is called ?
Oh, I see what he's getting at ... what if you had a program that read a
struct ifnet out of kmem, for example, and you needed to piece the name
back together, or whatever...
Umm .. I had to make some changes to netstat, sure...but, ironically
enough, like the code in the kernel that did the same thing, the new code
is actually smaller and less complex. So, I'm not sure I really see a
problem, except for the "Erk, this program is broken now."
Really, in the cases of programs that go groveling though kernel memory,
have intimate (and sometimes perverse) knowledge of kernel data
strctures, and what not, you're bound to run into incompatibility
problems..."The cost of progress", I suppose... Avoiding incompatibility
with more sane version identification is clearly something that we need
to be more aware of.
----save the ancient forests - http://www.bayarea.net/~thorpej/forest/----
Jason R. Thorpe firstname.lastname@example.org
NASA Ames Research Center Home: 408.866.1912
NAS: M/S 258-6 Work: 415.604.0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035 Pager: 415.428.6939