Re: The patch of boot to open a virtual network interface

[zhengda]

Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> At Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:48:11 +0200,
> zhengda wrote:
>   
> > 2008-07-29 Zheng Da <zhengda1936@gmail.com>
> >
> >         * boot/boot.c (ds_device_open): Handle the request to open the virtual 
> > network device.
> >
> > diff -u boot.old/boot.c boot/boot.c
> > --- boot.old/boot.c     2008-08-17 18:38:02.000000000 +0200
> > +++ boot/boot.c 2008-08-17 18:36:40.520000000 +0200
> > @@ -964,6 +964,22 @@
> >        *devicetype = MACH_MSG_TYPE_MAKE_SEND;
> >        return 0;
> >      }
> > +  else if (strncmp (name, "veth", 4) == 0)
> > +    {
> > +      char buf[128];
> > +      mach_port_t net_device;
> > +
> > +      snprintf (buf, sizeof(buf), "/dev/%s", name);
> > +      net_device = file_name_lookup (buf, 0, 0);
> > +      if (net_device == MACH_PORT_NULL)
> > +       {
> > +         error (0, errno, "file_name_lookup");
> > +         return errno;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +      *devicetype = MACH_MSG_TYPE_MOVE_SEND;
> > +      return device_open (net_device, mode, "eth", device);
> > +    }
> >  
> >    *devicetype = MACH_MSG_TYPE_MOVE_SEND;
> >    return device_open (master_device_port, mode, name, device);
> >     
>
> I don't like this approach.  This allows the subhurd to access any
> object in the parent hurd that boot can access.  Boot should take an
> option indicating which device to use for the network interface and
> only make that node available. 

Since boot only uses one interface, boot probably accepts only one 
interface name from subhurd.
Should the interface name always be "eth0"?

Zheng Da