On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> there's not supposed to be bpf0,1,2,3...
>
> Unfortunately history argues otherwise.
no, i meant if we move to the clonable bpf, we will need only one node.
sorry for not making it clear.
> there's not supposed to be bpf0,1,2,3...
Unfortunately history argues otherwise.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
>> apparently it works just fine. the number of clones is limited
>> by the v_specbitmap which currently allows for 64 clones total
>> (per system, not per process).
>>
>
> Please clar
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> apparently it works just fine. the number of clones is limited
> by the v_specbitmap which currently allows for 64 clones total
> (per system, not per process).
>
Please clarify: Does it mean 64 cloned bpf devices per system or 64
cloned
2012/11/27 Mike Belopuhov :
>
> apply the diff and see how all your apps are happily using single
> device node: /dev/bpf0.
> i'm not 100% sure we want this but why wouldn't we?
> generally speaking we also need to move to a single /dev/bpf
> node, but that can be done, once this diff is tested and
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 22:17 +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> apparently it works just fine. the number of clones is limited
> by the v_specbitmap which currently allows for 64 clones total
> (per system, not per process).
>
> apply the diff and see how all your apps are happily using single
> dev
apparently it works just fine. the number of clones is limited
by the v_specbitmap which currently allows for 64 clones total
(per system, not per process).
apply the diff and see how all your apps are happily using single
device node: /dev/bpf0.
thanks to pedro and thib for the spec_open_clone
