Re: BPF_MISC+BPF_COP and BPF_COPX

2013-08-09 Thread Darren Reed
On 9/08/2013 12:17 AM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote: > Darren Reed wrote: >> On 8/08/2013 9:14 PM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote: >>> Darren Reed wrote: > > You do not have to use it. I get no choice - it is in the kernel by default. >>> >>> There is no default coprocessor

Re: how calculate the number of ip addresses in a range?

2013-08-09 Thread Fleuriot Damien
On Aug 8, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:04 AM, s m wrote: >> hello guys, >> >> i have a question about ip addresses. i know my question is not related to >> freebsd but i googled a lot and found nothing useful and don't know where i >> should ask my question.

Re: BPF_MISC+BPF_COP and BPF_COPX

2013-08-09 Thread Steven Bellovin
On Aug 8, 2013, at 4:14 AM, Darren Reed wrote: > > No. It's not about calling a function, it is about proving the BPF > program is correct and secure. > > BPF today is essentially assembly language operations that are all > easily tested and verified. There's a one-word summary: *assurance*.

Re: BPF_MISC+BPF_COP and BPF_COPX

2013-08-09 Thread Mindaugas Rasiukevicius
Steven, Steven Bellovin wrote: > There's a one-word summary: *assurance*. With the current design, > it's easy to *know* what can happen. With a Turing-complete extension, > it isn't. It is still easy and the concept itself is very simple. I mentioned that this extension does not make byte-co

Re: BPF_MISC+BPF_COP and BPF_COPX

2013-08-09 Thread Thor Lancelot Simon
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:34:25PM +0100, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote: > Steven, > > Steven Bellovin wrote: > > There's a one-word summary: *assurance*. With the current design, > > it's easy to *know* what can happen. With a Turing-complete extension, > > it isn't. > > It is still easy and

Re: BPF_MISC+BPF_COP and BPF_COPX

2013-08-09 Thread Mouse
> Yes, but since the extension makes the program no longer consist > solely of bytecode, it tends to give the impression that the program > may now be, in total, in a Turing-complete language. It blurs the > boundary between the program and its interpreter, by allowing the > bytecode to directly c

Re: BPF_MISC+BPF_COP and BPF_COPX

2013-08-09 Thread Mindaugas Rasiukevicius
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:34:25PM +0100, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote: > > Steven, > > > > Steven Bellovin wrote: > > > There's a one-word summary: *assurance*. With the current design, > > > it's easy to *know* what can happen. With a Turing-complete > > > exten

Re: BPF_MISC+BPF_COP and BPF_COPX

2013-08-09 Thread Matt Thomas
On Aug 9, 2013, at 1:44 PM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:34:25PM +0100, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote: >> Steven, >> >> Steven Bellovin wrote: >>> There's a one-word summary: *assurance*. With the current design, >>> it's easy to *know* what can happen. With a Turi

Re: how calculate the number of ip addresses in a range?

2013-08-09 Thread Peter Wemm
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Fleuriot Damien wrote: > > On Aug 8, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:04 AM, s m wrote: >>> hello guys, >>> >>> i have a question about ip addresses. i know my question is not related to >>> freebsd but i googled a lot and found

Re: how calculate the number of ip addresses in a range?

2013-08-09 Thread Kimmo Paasiala
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Fleuriot Damien wrote: >> >> On Aug 8, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:04 AM, s m wrote: hello guys, i have a question about ip addresses. i know my question

Re: how calculate the number of ip addresses in a range?

2013-08-09 Thread Kimmo Paasiala
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Fleuriot Damien wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 8, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:04 AM, s m wrote: > hello guys, >>

Re: how calculate the number of ip addresses in a range?

2013-08-09 Thread Peter Wemm
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Fleuriot Damien wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 8, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:04 AM, s m wrote: > hello guys, >>>

Re: how calculate the number of ip addresses in a range?

2013-08-09 Thread Damien Fleuriot
On 10 Aug 2013, at 01:13, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Fleuriot Damien wrote: On Aug 8, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: > On

Re: how calculate the number of ip addresses in a range?

2013-08-09 Thread Damien Fleuriot
On 10 Aug 2013, at 01:17, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Fleuriot Damien wrote: On Aug 8, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: > On Thu,

Re: how calculate the number of ip addresses in a range?

2013-08-09 Thread Damien Fleuriot
On 10 Aug 2013, at 01:07, Kimmo Paasiala wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Fleuriot Damien wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 8, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Peter Wemm wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:04 AM, s m wrote: > hello guys,