|
Re: [NSE] Raw sockets support: msg#00067security.nmap.devel
majek04 wrote: > Diman Todorov wrote: >> I personally think that modifying nsock is preferable to introducing >> a thread library dependence into nmap. >> > > In summary we can add pcap support to nsock or > use some ugly and not portable hack. > Hi again. I have next question. I'm not pcap expert yet. As far as I understand Fyodor's patch http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/2006/q4/att-0128/nmap-osx-fix_diff means that on some architectures we must use blocking pcap_next. Integrating some pcap/dnet features into nsock makes sense only if pcap descriptors could be used in the same 'select()' as nsock descriptors. If I'm not wrong we're left with only two options - running pcap_next in other thread than nsock_loop or - running pcap_next after nsock_loop with very short timeouts. The problem here is that pcap timeouts are broken. The alternative would be to set pcap descriptor in nonblocking mode. But I don't know if it's portable. So what do you guys think about it? Cheers, Marek Majkowski _______________________________________________ Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev Archived at http://SecLists.Org |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: nmap doesn't compile on Solaris 9 with Sun Studio Pro: 00067, Leo Zhadanovsky |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Dramatically reduce # of fopen()s and fclose()s in nbase_rnd.c: 00067, Fyodor |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [NSE] Raw sockets supporti: 00067, majek04 |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [NSE] Raw sockets support: 00067, Fyodor |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |