lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: about syslogd and printk()
On Wed, 22 Jul 1998 kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote:

> As I understand it was intentional.
>
> Bound packet sockets should not see outgoing packets, because
> they are intended for normal raw communication bypassing
> protocol stacks.
>
> Only promiscuous nits sniff everything.

Unfortunately with the snoop bound to ETH_P_ALL nothing seems
to go out of the real interface while with the snoop bound to
ETH_P_IP it works. There is some wierd interaction going on
here somewhere (I've sent Alexey some traces that I find dubious).

It doesn't seem unreasonable to be able to snoop a specific
protocol in both directions rather than snooping everything
and having to filter it in the application. Is there some
standard we are following here?

Something else is that diald really wants to know whether
a packet is being received or transmitted on the interface,
regardless of whether it orginated locally or is being forwarded
for someone else. Taken with the above it sounds as though we
could have some socket options on packet sockets which would
allow processing of received/transmitted packets to be enabled
and disabled. These could default to the current behaviour
unless changed with setsockopt. Is that at all reasonable?

Mike

--
.----------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Mike Jagdis | Internet: mailto:mike@roan.co.uk |
| Roan Technology Ltd. | |
| 54A Peach Street, Wokingham | Telephone: +44 118 989 0403 |
| RG40 1XG, ENGLAND | Fax: +44 118 989 1195 |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------'

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans