As a project I want to attempt to rewrite the socket(), connect(),
send() and recv() functions and was wondering if anybody can point me in
the right direction.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

chris <chris@misery.net> writes:

> As a project I want to attempt to rewrite the socket(), connect(),
> send() and recv() functions and was wondering if anybody can point me
> in the right direction.

Why would you want to do that?  They are just thin wrappers around the
corresponding system calls.

--
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Måns Rullgård wrote:

> chris <chris@misery.net> writes:
>
> 
>
>
> Why would you want to do that?  They are just thin wrappers around the
> corresponding system calls.
>

Wouldn't I be able to emulate connect(), send() and recv() in userland
with a raw socket (ie. construct my own SYN packet for connect())? The
one I'm really unsure about is socket().

As for "Why?", it's just for fun and to learn.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

chris <chris@misery.net> writes:

> Måns Rullgård wrote:
> 
>
> Wouldn't I be able to emulate connect(), send() and recv() in userland
> with a raw socket (ie. construct my own SYN packet for connect())?

I suppose you could.

> The one I'm really unsure about is socket().

You'd need the system socket() to get the raw socket.

> As for "Why?", it's just for fun and to learn.

That's always a legitimate reason.

--
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Måns Rullgård wrote:

> chris <chris@misery.net> writes:
>
> 
>
>
> I suppose you could.
>
> 
>
>
> You'd need the system socket() to get the raw socket.
>
> 
>
>
> That's always a legitimate reason.
>

I have a new idea: I can write directly to a BPF device, and won't need
to use the true socket() function. My socket() function can simply
return a structure with the BPF file descriptor and anything else I
need. Feedback?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]