MB> I found similar problem with bpf flag BIOCSSEESENT. Here is simple
MB> workaround:
Yes its the same problem that i've found but it is not limited to the
ethernet case. virtually each bpf_mtap must be modified to add support
for a 'real' pkthdr.
fabien
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
I found similar problem with bpf flag BIOCSSEESENT. Here is simple
workaround:
if_ethersubr.c: ether_input()
/* Check for a BPF tap */
if (ifp->if_bpf != NULL) {
/* This kludge is OK; BPF treats the "mbuf" as read-only */
struct mbuf m0;
m
> From: Julian Elischer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Don Bowman wrote:
>
> >
> > If I create a rule to 'fwd' packets with a particular TCP option
> > set (or IP option) to a specific local port, and then I accept
> > on that port, will subsequent packets without that option
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002, Don Bowman wrote:
>
> If I create a rule to 'fwd' packets with a particular TCP option
> set (or IP option) to a specific local port, and then I accept
> on that port, will subsequent packets without that option work?
>
> ie, I have this:
>
> 100 fwd localhost,9000 tcp f
If I create a rule to 'fwd' packets with a particular TCP option
set (or IP option) to a specific local port, and then I accept
on that port, will subsequent packets without that option work?
ie, I have this:
100 fwd localhost,9000 tcp from any to any 1234 tcpoptions ts recv interface
SYN (TCP
Hi,
It seems there is a problem in the bpf_mtap code:
Actually the code assume in the seesent case that mbuf will have a pkthdr structure.
There is 2 problems here:
+ they did not check for that with (m_flag & M_PKTHDR)
+ at the upper level the caller forge fake mbuf that did not
jeremie le-hen wrote:
However, I fight with 802.1x under FreeBSD. I know Pekka Nikander worked on an
802.1x implementation under FreeBSD (see [1]), but I wasn't able to make it
work with a FreeRadius server.
My 802.1x implementation is still lacking quite a lot,
especially at the user space side
