On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 03:32:34PM -0400, Wesley Shields wrote:
> Per a message about a month ago[1] I recently started some work on
> adding a -v flag to ifconfig. I've been able to get the index number
> and epoch as those are exposed to userland, but both the dname and dunit
> are in an ifnet s
Per a message about a month ago[1] I recently started some work on
adding a -v flag to ifconfig. I've been able to get the index number
and epoch as those are exposed to userland, but both the dname and dunit
are in an ifnet struct which AFAIK is not visible. I initially thought
you might be able
On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 07:51:08PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> The code that prints out the keys for the 802.11 wireless stuff has
> the following it it:
>
> void
> ieee80211_status (int s, struct rt_addrinfo *info __unused)
> {
> ...
> if (ireq.i_len == 0 || ireq.i_len >
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Wes Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Only if the spec says those are the only valid ranges. Then we have to
: keep up to date with changes in the spec, too. Either some simple sanity
: checks or checking for truly valid lengths -- 0, 40 bits, 128
On Saturday 29 March 2003 18:51, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> The code that prints out the keys for the 802.11 wireless stuff has
> the following it it:
>
> void
> ieee80211_status (int s, struct rt_addrinfo *info __unused)
> {
> ...
> if (ireq.i_len == 0 || ireq.i_len > 13)
>
The code that prints out the keys for the 802.11 wireless stuff has
the following it it:
void
ieee80211_status (int s, struct rt_addrinfo *info __unused)
{
...
if (ireq.i_len == 0 || ireq.i_len > 13)
continue;
...
}
Should that check really
[Redirected to -net]
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 02:53:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I installed the new release 4.4 on one machine to check out a feature I have been
>waiting for.
> That is the ability to track bytes through one interface using several IP numbers. I
>seem to have
> misse
