From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Dw0hx-0007D8-Gn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:49:10 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Dw0ho-00078z-Fj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:49:01 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dw0ho-000786-Cd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:49:00 -0400 Received: from [69.17.117.28] (helo=mail26.sea5.speakeasy.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1Dw0pA-0000wM-GU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:56:36 -0400 Received: from dsl081-088-222.lax1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO [192.168.111.2]) ([64.81.88.222]) (envelope-sender ) by mail26.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 22 Jul 2005 16:46:13 -0000 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Anyone familiar with the slirp code? From: "John R. Hogerhuis" In-Reply-To: <20050722155125.GC3558@cel.leo> References: <20050722155125.GC3558@cel.leo> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:47:13 -0700 Message-Id: <1122050833.6034.400.camel@aragorn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: jhoger@pobox.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org I don't think the original author anticipated or cared about slirp being ported to a 64-bit processor. I won't speak for the quality of the code in general, but on a 32-bit machine the pointer size is 32-bit. It's perfectly safe on that platform to use any 32-bit spot as a hidey hole for your cookies. Things like this is why porting from 32-bit to 64-bit is hard. Frankly I wonder at the reason for increasingly higher word sizes on machines. Is the bulk of our data these days really 64-bits long? But I digress... Just go for it. The slirp code was imported into qemu. At this point you're probably as much an expert as anyone. There is no upstream maintainer for the code either, I looked and found and asked the last sucker that had maintained it for a bit, and he just wanted to unload it. If you fix it though, be prepared for the fact that you will be the new expert ;-) One thing I'd like to see long term is to completely remove the NAT code and replace it with something more modern and robust like netfilter. That would give us a lot of nice application level gateways (nat modules) for important protocols, and some tweakable firewall settings for user-net. While I'm wishing, in fact it would be a nice feature in general for QEMU to have a built in firewall pointed at each host with fairly minimal permissions by default. A windows machine on your network is a windows machine on your network, virtual or not :-) -- John.