Subject: Re: [REGRESSION][PATCH V4 3/3] bpf jit: Let the powerpc jit handle negative offsets

From: Jan Seiffert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 00:32:13 +0200

Benjamin Herrenschmidt schrieb:
> On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 07:55 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 13:41 -0400, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[email-masked]>
>>> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:26:08 +1000
>>>
>>>> David, what's the right way to fix that ?
>>>
>>> There is no doubt that sock_fprog is the correct datastructure to use.
>>
>> Ok, so the right fix is to email anybody who posted code using struct
>> bpf_program to fix their code ? :-)
> 
> Actually, the right fix is for anybody using pcap-bpf.h to not
> use SO_ATTACH_FILTER directly but to use pcap_setfilter() which
> handles the compatibility.
> 

*shudder*
Link to another lib for only one function because....

http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sys/net/bpf.h?rev=1.59&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&only_with_tag=MAIN
The "Original" says it's an u_int.

But i guess it is unfixable without breaking something, except with ugly code.
Should the padding at least be made explicit in the in-kernel struct?
Did anyone ever tested the 32bit on 64bit compat code (different padding)?

> I'll start spamming web sites who tell people to do the wrong thing.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ben.
> 

Greetings
	Jan

-- 
A UDP packet walks into a