On 2016 Aug 17 (Wed) at 10:39:51 +0100 (+0100), Stuart Henderson wrote:
:On 2016/08/17 10:11, Peter Hessler wrote:
:> It sure would be nice if we could see the PID of the process that added
:> routes. Heck, route(8) even tries to print them already.
:>
:> Add the fields to the appropriate struct, and while here, document which
:> fields are in sync.
:>
:> (requested by krw@)
:>
:> OK?
:>
:>
:> Index: net/if.h
:> ===================================================================
:> RCS file: /cvs/openbsd/src/sys/net/if.h,v
:> retrieving revision 1.177
:> diff -u -p -u -p -r1.177 if.h
:> --- net/if.h 10 Jun 2016 20:33:29 -0000 1.177
:> +++ net/if.h 19 Jul 2016 13:41:53 -0000
:> @@ -267,6 +267,7 @@ struct if_msghdr {
:> int ifm_addrs; /* like rtm_addrs */
:> int ifm_flags; /* value of if_flags */
:> int ifm_xflags;
:> + pid_t ifam_pid; /* identify sender */
:> struct if_data ifm_data;/* statistics and other data about if */
:> };
:
:should this be ifm not ifam?
:
Yes, that is a typo, thanks!
:it might be better after ifm_data (probably won't pack as well, but
:I think lower impact on software using if_msghdr).
:
No, the packing is identical if we keep it before ifm_data. if we put
it after ifm_data, things are corrupt.
:>
:> @@ -286,6 +287,7 @@ struct ifa_msghdr {
:> int ifam_addrs; /* like rtm_addrs */
:> int ifam_flags; /* value of ifa_flags */
:> int ifam_metric; /* value of ifa_metric */
:> + pid_t ifam_pid; /* identify sender */
:> };
:
:I'll try to figure out ports impact of this, but it probably won't be today.
Thanks!
--
Insanity is the final defense. It's hard to get a refund when the
salesman is sniffing your crotch and baying at the moon.
