On Sep 10, 2012, at 3:41 AM, "David Laight" <david.lai...@aculab.com> wrote:
>>> What about the other OS - eg all the BSDs? >>> I had a vague idea that BPF was supposed to be reasonable portable. >> >> Yes, does it mean BPF is frozen ? >> >> Or is BSD so hard to update these days ? > > Not really - but it some other places that need updating in order > to make this useful for cross-platform tools (like tcpdump). > > The 'real fun (tm)' happens when NetBSD tries to run Linux binaries > that include the Linux libpcap. Additional fun happens when a Linux system with a kernel that doesn't have the mod instruction tries to run Linux binaries that include a Linux libpcap that generates code using the mod instruction; this is not a BSD-vs.-Linux issue, it's a "kernel that lacks the mod instruction vs. libpcap that generates code that includes the mod instruction" issue. BSD/OS X, Linux, Solaris, and the WinPcap driver need, if they adopt new BPF instructions, to have a mechanism by which libpcap (or anything else using BPF filtering) can inquire about the capabilities of the OS BPF interpreter; libpcap would use that to determine what code to generate if generating code for the in-kernel BPF interpreter. (Please reply to tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org as well as to net...@vger.kernel.org, so that people not on both of those lists can follow the discussion. Messages from non-members of tcpdump-workers to tcpdump-workers shouldn't bounce, but they do need to be approved by a moderator; Michael, if you want to at least temporarily turn the flood on for my e-mail address, so I can help moderate, go ahead.) _______________________________________________ tcpdump-workers mailing list tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
