On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:03 PM David Gwynne wrote:
...
> so like this?
>
...
> --- if_tun.c24 Feb 2018 07:20:04 - 1.181
> +++ if_tun.c12 Nov 2018 06:02:51 -
> @@ -193,6 +193,9 @@ tun_create(struct if_clone *ifc, int uni
> struct tun_softc*tp;
>
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 10:55:06PM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> Philip Guenther wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 9:45 PM David Gwynne wrote:
> >
> > > If you can trick someone into implementing 64bit device ids you can have
> > > more than your 16 millionth tap device.
> > >
> >
> >
Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 9:45 PM David Gwynne wrote:
>
> > If you can trick someone into implementing 64bit device ids you can have
> > more than your 16 millionth tap device.
> >
>
> Hhahahahahahahhahahahahah.
>
> That would involve rolling six syscall numbers, not
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 9:45 PM David Gwynne wrote:
> If you can trick someone into implementing 64bit device ids you can have
> more than your 16 millionth tap device.
>
Hhahahahahahahhahahahahah.
That would involve rolling six syscall numbers, not to mention handling the
64bit padding in one
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 08:52:39PM -0800, Greg Steuck wrote:
> I was playing with `ifconfig tapN create`. It appears some devices can be
> created outside the useful range. E.g.
>
> % for i in {23..25}; do \
>dev=tap$(printf "%d" $((1 << $i))) && \
>doas ifconfig $dev destroy ; \
>
