[2429] in linux-net channel archive
Re: OK, now that we agree
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Shaver)
Tue Apr 9 16:03:24 1996
From: Mike Shaver <shaver@neon.ingenia.com>
To: iialan@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 11:48:00 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au, linux-net@vger.rutgers.edu
In-Reply-To: <m0u6gn8-0009fKC@iifeak.swan.ac.uk> from "Alan Cox" at Apr 9, 96 06:01:16 pm
Thus spake Alan Cox:
> > How much trouble would it be to allow some bizarre and illegal bind()
> > address (255.255.255.255 springs to mind) register a socket as being a
> > transparent proxy/user-space masquerade?
>
> setsockopt(my_socket, SOL_SOCKET, SO_MASQUERADE, &one,sizeof(one))
OK, then how does the kernel react to inbound SYNs, etc.? Does it
forge them back itself, or somehow get the process to?
I'd prefer having the process do it, because otherwise it's hard to
handle to semantics of CONNREFUSED correctly.
> Better make it root only too.
Heh.
Mike
--
#> Mike Shaver (shaver@ingenia.com) Ingenia Communications Corporation <#
#> Technical specialist -- Head geek -- System exorcist <#
#> <#
#> "Have you considered a life? I hear they're quite affordable <#
#> these days." --- shields@tembel.org <#
