Re: Is tun(4) a cloning device?

On Fri 25 Dec 2015 at 16:02:57 +, Christos Zoulas wrote: > Exactly, it depends if it makes sense to have a magic minor device like > that... Does it? Well, it seems that Linux has it. In fact, it has a single file for both tap en tun (/dev/net/tun) and an ioctl to change it between tun and

Re: Is tun(4) a cloning device?

In article <22169.1451036...@andromeda.noi.kre.to>, Robert Elz wrote: >Date:Fri, 25 Dec 2015 00:20:56 +0100 >From:Rhialto >Message-ID: <20151224232056.gf5...@falu.nl> > > | Grom reading the source, net/if_tun.c, I get the

Re: Is tun(4) a cloning device?

On Dec 25, 5:19pm, rhia...@falu.nl (Rhialto) wrote: -- Subject: Re: Is tun(4) a cloning device? | Well, it seems that Linux has it. In fact, it has a single file for both | tap en tun (/dev/net/tun) and an ioctl to change it between tun and | tap. | | I don't propose to go that far (I think

Re: Is tun(4) a cloning device?

Rhialto wrote: >On Fri 25 Dec 2015 at 16:02:57 +, Christos Zoulas wrote: >> Exactly, it depends if it makes sense to have a magic minor device like >> that... Does it? > >Well, it seems that Linux has it. In fact, it has a single file for both >tap en tun (/dev/net/tun) and

Re: Is tun(4) a cloning device?

On Fri 25 Dec 2015 at 17:26:04 +, Robert Swindells wrote: > Why not use tap(4) ? Yes, I use that too as an option. That's why I like tun and tap to be as similar as possible (barring their fundamental differences of course). If both can just open /dev/xxx that is nicer than one use case just

amd64-7.0_STABLE trap panic (reprise)

Similar to a previous posting: http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2015/11/06/msg028356.html My file server, running 7.0_STABLE/amd64 of around 7 December panicked this afternoon. The backtrace from the saved crashdump is not the same as any previously posted, but has some similar