On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 12:54:45PM +0900, Yoshinobu Inoue wrote:
> Currentlly jail set an ip-number and let prisoned processes
> only to bind it.
[ the current jail(2) interface and its future WRT IPv6 ]
> I think kernel change will not so much for any above addition
> or changes, but there will be some backword compatibility
> issue for API. (some member addition to the jail structure,
> and jail command extensions)
There's been a discussion a few weeks ago on freebsd-security on
this very matter. See attached mail below.
The conclusion was that jail(2) should be fixed to use a sockaddr
instead of a 32 bit int to specify the address.
That seems to be the first logical step, even before making jail(2)
IPv6-compliant.
Pierre
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1999 11:58:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Garrett Wollman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BPF on in 3.3-RC GENERIC kernel
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<<On Sat, 18 Sep 1999 22:51:14 -0700 (PDT), Matthew Dillon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> struct sockaddr is the standard for specifying an IP address. Jail
> isn't using it, not even for IPV4. It's using an unsigned 32 bit int.
> Hell, it isn't even using a struct in_addr! The field is plain and
> simply inappropriately specified in the structure.
For once, I agree with Matt. As titular networking czar, I'm asking
you, Poul, to please fix the interface.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | O Siem / The fires of freedom
Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
