Neal H. Walfield wrote:
At Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:48:11 +0200,
zhengda wrote:
2008-07-29 Zheng Da <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* boot/boot.c (ds_device_open): Handle the request to open the virtual
network device.
diff -u boot.old/boot.c boot/boot.c
--- boot.old/boot.c 2008-08-17 18:38:02.000000000 +0200
+++ boot/boot.c 2008-08-17 18:36:40.520000000 +0200
@@ -964,6 +964,22 @@
*devicetype = MACH_MSG_TYPE_MAKE_SEND;
return 0;
}
+ else if (strncmp (name, "veth", 4) == 0)
+ {
+ char buf[128];
+ mach_port_t net_device;
+
+ snprintf (buf, sizeof(buf), "/dev/%s", name);
+ net_device = file_name_lookup (buf, 0, 0);
+ if (net_device == MACH_PORT_NULL)
+ {
+ error (0, errno, "file_name_lookup");
+ return errno;
+ }
+
+ *devicetype = MACH_MSG_TYPE_MOVE_SEND;
+ return device_open (net_device, mode, "eth", device);
+ }
*devicetype = MACH_MSG_TYPE_MOVE_SEND;
return device_open (master_device_port, mode, name, device);
I don't like this approach. This allows the subhurd to access any
object in the parent hurd that boot can access. Boot should take an
option indicating which device to use for the network interface and
only make that node available.
Since boot only uses one interface, boot probably accepts only one
interface name from subhurd.
Should the interface name always be "eth0"?
Zheng Da
