Re: Global (non _KERNEL) place for sockaddr_union?

From: Max Laier (max_at_love2party.net)
Date: 09/23/04

  • Next message: Julian Elischer: "Re: question on tunnels (VPN)" 
    To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 02:14:00 +0200

    On Monday 20 September 2004 02:50, Max Laier wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/71836 is the symptom. Now I
    > am looking for a clean solution to it. What is needed is an include file
    > that defines union sockaddr_union in a way that is useable from kernel and
    > userland. Historically it seems that this union first apeared in context of
    > ipsec within the kernel. pf has adopted it, but uses it in the userland as
    > well. I am sure that it can be usefull in a lot of places that have to deal
    > with/store different address formats.
    >
    > My question now is, what would be a good place to define this? Are there
    > any fromal standarts that might define it already? (Couldn't find anything)
    > Is there anything else that I must consider?
    >
    > At some point I though netinet/in.h might be a good place, but that'd
    > require inclusion of sys/socket.h, which certainly is not a good solution.
    >
    > Opinions? Ideas?

    As no real solution has come up and we couldn't agree what to do with it
    either, I'll resort to an easy hack:
     http://people.freebsd.org/~mlaier/sockaddr_union.fix.diff

    This will fix the issue and not create new problems. With the small exception
    for userland programs that try to include <netipsec/keydb.h> before
    <net/pfvar.h> and make use of sockaddr_union. Those programs do not exist,
    however, and have been broken before.

    Any objections? [ I know it's ugly already. ] 

    -- 
/"\  Best regards,                      | mlaier@freebsd.org
\ /  Max Laier                          | ICQ #67774661
 X   http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/  | mlaier@EFnet
/ \  ASCII Ribbon Campaign              | Against HTML Mail and News

  • Next message: Julian Elischer: "Re: question on tunnels (VPN)"

    Relevant Pages