Bug#718224: UDP_ENCAP kernel definition doesn't match userland
2013/7/29 Steven Chamberlain <steven@pyro.eu.org>:
> Some code appears to have
> possibly hardcoded a value of 100. And even NetBSD seems to have
> chosen that value. So I think we should simply change GNU/kFreeBSD to
> use 100 in the kernel.
>
> I don't foresee any breakage from such a change. This is only relevant
> to IPSEC-enabled kernels anyway, which Debian doesn't currently build.
>
> Alternatively we could even accept *both* values to mean UDP_ENCAP.
For proposals to change kernel-user ABI, would it be possible to
discuss them in freebsd-arch instead? It seems to me that you have a
strong case in favour of accepting both values.
Upstream is receptive to changes that improve their compatibility.
Running Debian in a chroot on FreeBSD is a valid use case that they
would be happy to discuss improvements about as long as they're not
detrimental to FreeBSD userland.
I still think the right solution would be to move UDP_ENCAP into a
kernel-specific header, though. But I don't see why we can't have both
(FreeBSD can benefit from supporting Wheezy chroots regardless of what
Glibc does in the future).
Reply to: