Re: ipfw rules vs routes to localhost?
From: Barney Wolff (barney_at_databus.com)
Date: 05/29/03
- Previous message: Neelkanth Natu: "Re: ipfw rules vs routes to localhost?"
- In reply to: Crist J. Clark: "Re: ipfw rules vs routes to localhost?"
- Next in thread: Neelkanth Natu: "Re: ipfw rules vs routes to localhost?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 19:32:06 -0400 To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu
On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 03:28:52PM -0700, Crist J. Clark wrote:
>
> Writing something that uses pfil(9) might also be a lightweight way to
> do this.
Hmm, yes. But the problem of communicating the table to the kernel
remains. Is there a natural BSD way to have a block of memory mapped
both to kernel and user space? With SVR4 Streams, I'd probably
use an ioctl to communicate.
-- Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net. _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Neelkanth Natu: "Re: ipfw rules vs routes to localhost?"
- In reply to: Crist J. Clark: "Re: ipfw rules vs routes to localhost?"
- Next in thread: Neelkanth Natu: "Re: ipfw rules vs routes to localhost?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
