From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Borkmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: introduce SO_BPF_EXTENSIONS Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 11:02:01 +0100 Message-ID: <52A1A099.3010901@redhat.com> References: <1385639832-3938-1-git-send-email-msekleta@redhat.com> <1385659889.5352.25.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <5298A0EF.70401@redhat.com> <1386264770.30495.204.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric Dumazet , =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGFsIFNla2xldMOh?= =?UTF-8?B?cg==?= , Michal Sekletar , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Michael Kerrisk To: David Laight Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54811 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751961Ab3LFK1T (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Dec 2013 05:27:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/06/2013 10:50 AM, David Laight wrote: >> if SO_BPF_EXTENSIONS is supported, than you can assume that all current >> extensions are supported. >> >> No need to consume one bit per feature, as all these features wont ever >> disappear from linux. > > However one of the BSDs could add a subset of the features and > wish to advertise the fact. > So using extra flags for non-trivial extensions could be useful. Haven't had a closer look at the BSD BPF code /yet/, so ... i) Does BSD have such extensions and if so do we overlap some? ii) Is it planned to also introduce SO_BPF_EXTENSIONS for BSD kernels to have one common api (that i.e. libpcap would then make use of)? > David >