Hello. Stian Sletner wrote:
I experimented some more with this, since it seemed to be the right
thing to do, the dosnet stuff is IP oriented after all, and shouldn't be necessary to achieve this, I would think.
Dosnet have nothing to do with IP. It's goal is to emulate an Ethernet network on a single machine. This is accomplished by: 1. Assigning an unique MAC address (fake) to each dosemu session (done in libpacket.c); 2. Ensuring that each dosemu receives only the packets directed to it, and the broadcast ones. (done in dosnet module). This is achieved by manipulating the "protocol" field of skb, and your patch breaks this.
There's no end to what one can achieve with an all-nighter of source hacking, eh?
I think you'd better spent some efforts to rethink your needs:) as what you are doing, seems out of curiosity (to me at least).
After tons of experimenting and code-writing (and Coke drinking), it boiled down to a one-line change (of course :) to get it working.
To get working what? If you want to put the packets to the interface and pick them back immediately, then why not just use a loopback lo interface (for example)?
Here's the patch.
You could probably achieve the same with just ETH_P_LOOP instead of ETH_P_ALL.
I'd like to know if this could be applied or if that'd break something else?
It breaks everything. It breaks dosnet for already described reason (all dosemus will receive all the packets, and not only the ones directed to them). It breaks also a packet driver, as the DOS software will now receive every ethernet frames, even if it requested a particular type. Well, before anything else, please just explain (to yourself and to me:) what do you *actually* need? How something can work correctly, if you use an interface the way it is not intended to be used? What is a dest. address of the frames you are going to pick up? If the dest. address doesn't match the addr. of the interface you are picking it from (and the dest is not a broadcast), then you are already doing something wrong. From what I have currently, it seems to me that you have to think again about a dosnet (reverting your patch at first of course, otherwise don't think about dosnet anymore:), because dosnet was specially designed for the tricks like that and it's functionality is very close to TAP interface (maybe one day I'll make dosemu to use TAP so that we throw dosnet away). I don't have an internet connection from my LAN now because the admins changed the net mask on their routers from 255.255.255.0 to 255.255.0.0 in order to "make all the subnets visible to each other", but actually they got a clash of an IP ranges on every router's interfaces, so whenever my station sends an ARP request with my IP, the router answers with it's own MAC, because it thinks this IP exists in another subnet. This incident definitely have some similarities with your patch:) [OK, gone to duel with admins:) ] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-msdos" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
