From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Feb 29 15:38:56 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC4A11065671
	for <freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:38:56 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from piso@southcross.wired.org)
Received: from mail.oltrelinux.com (krisma.oltrelinux.com [194.242.226.43])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 778248FC27
	for <freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:38:56 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from piso@southcross.wired.org)
Received: from southcross.wired.org (host-62-10-20-127.cust-adsl.tiscali.it
	[62.10.20.127])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.oltrelinux.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A736411AE8D;
	Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:38:51 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from piso@localhost)
	by southcross.wired.org (8.14.2/8.14.1/Submit) id m1TFfjtx007039;
	Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:41:45 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from piso)
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:41:44 +0100
From: piso@FreeBSD.org
To: Vadim Goncharov <vadim_nuclight@mail.ru>
Message-ID: <20080229154144.GA81243@tin.it>
References: <20080228151134.GA73358@tin.it>
	<slrnfsf5iv.17n8.vadim_nuclight@hostel.avtf.net>
	<20080229095150.GA76592@tin.it>
	<slrnfsg64q.223r.vadim_nuclight@hostel.avtf.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <slrnfsg64q.223r.vadim_nuclight@hostel.avtf.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at krisma.oltrelinux.com
Cc: freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: [patch] ipfw_nat as a kld module
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions <freebsd-ipfw.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ipfw>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ipfw-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:38:56 -0000

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 02:37:14PM +0000, Vadim Goncharov wrote:
> >> * struct ip_fw_chain moved to .h and no longer static, is this good?
> >>   I suggest to move into it's own static chain in module, see next
> > the symbol is used outside it's originating file
> 
> Is it needed if LIST_HEAD will be in its own module?

every modification/access to layer3_chain lock is arbitrated via its
own rwlock(), thus to answer your question, yes, there are places
where we would need access to layer3_chain

> > that's something i thought about, but i didn't see any tangible improvement
> > to this modification, cause part of ipfw_nat would still be called from 
> > ipfw2.c (see ipfw_ctl).
> 
> This could be fixed, too, as is done with dummynet, which is also configured
> via ipfw(8). As it is HEAD, ABI can be broken and this will not be done via
> ipfw_ctl().

yes, but does it buy us anything? moreover, we would loose the ability
to merge the work back to 7.x.

bye,
P.