Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 May 2012 00:32:13 +0200 | From | Jan Seiffert <> | Subject | Re: [REGRESSION][PATCH V4 3/3] bpf jit: Let the powerpc jit handle negative offsets |
| |
Benjamin Herrenschmidt schrieb: > On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 07:55 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 13:41 -0400, David Miller wrote: >>> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> >>> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:26:08 +1000 >>> >>>> David, what's the right way to fix that ? >>> >>> There is no doubt that sock_fprog is the correct datastructure to use. >> >> Ok, so the right fix is to email anybody who posted code using struct >> bpf_program to fix their code ? :-) > > Actually, the right fix is for anybody using pcap-bpf.h to not > use SO_ATTACH_FILTER directly but to use pcap_setfilter() which > handles the compatibility. >
*shudder* Link to another lib for only one function because....
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sys/net/bpf.h?rev=1.59&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&only_with_tag=MAIN The "Original" says it's an u_int.
But i guess it is unfixable without breaking something, except with ugly code. Should the padding at least be made explicit in the in-kernel struct? Did anyone ever tested the 32bit on 64bit compat code (different padding)?
> I'll start spamming web sites who tell people to do the wrong thing. > > Cheers, > Ben. >
Greetings Jan
-- A UDP packet walks into a
| |