tcpdump mailing list archives
Re: net net/len (0.0.0.0)
From: Felipe Kellermann <stdfk () terra com br>
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 03:54:55 -0300 (BRT)
On Sun, 28 May 2006 2:19am -0300, Felipe Kellermann wrote:
On Sun, 28 May 2006 12:26am -0300, Felipe Kellermann wrote:I noticed 'net 0.0.0.0/0' filter compiles to a BPF code that differs from the alternative 'net mask' filter. All the others net filters I tried produced the same BPF code. Still haven't looked at the code -- is this resulting code known/intentional? Using pcap 0.9.4, src net 0.0.0.0 mask 0.0.0.0: (000) ldh [12] (001) jeq #0x800 jt 4 jf 2 (002) jeq #0x806 jt 4 jf 3 (003) jeq #0x8035 jt 4 jf 5 (004) ret #96 (005) ret #0
Just noticed that on a MacOSX/ppc (10.3.9) I get consistent results using both net/len and net/mask. On an OpenBSD/i386, OpenBSD/SPARC, Linux/i386 and Linux/mipsel the resulting BPF codes differ. -- Felipe Kellermann - This is the tcpdump-workers list. Visit https://lists.sandelman.ca/ to unsubscribe.
Current thread:
- net net/len (0.0.0.0) Felipe Kellermann (May 27)
- Re: net net/len (0.0.0.0) Felipe Kellermann (May 27)
- Re: net net/len (0.0.0.0) Felipe Kellermann (May 28)
- Re: net net/len (0.0.0.0) Guy Harris (May 28)
- Re: net net/len (0.0.0.0) Felipe Kellermann (May 28)
- Re: net net/len (0.0.0.0) Guy Harris (May 28)
- Re: net net/len (0.0.0.0) Felipe Kellermann (May 27)