From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 25 08:21:40 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00DAD16A4CE; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:21:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from relay.bestcom.ru (relay.bestcom.ru [217.72.144.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 231EC43D54; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:21:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: from cell.sick.ru (root@cell.sick.ru [217.72.144.68]) by relay.bestcom.ru (8.13.1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0P8Lbgg052735 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:21:38 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: from cell.sick.ru (glebius@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j0P8LaxV057567 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:21:37 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j0P8La0b057566; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:21:36 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.sick.ru: glebius set sender to glebius@freebsd.org using -f Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:21:36 +0300 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Andre Oppermann Message-ID: <20050125082136.GC57248@cell.sick.ru> References: <20050124100717.GA47663@cell.sick.ru> <41F5FED1.B6EFD246@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41F5FED1.B6EFD246@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version devel-20050125, clamav-milter version 0.80ff on relay.bestcom.ru X-Virus-Status: Clean cc: brooks@freebsd.org cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW #2] ng_ipfw: node to glue together ipfw(4) and netgraph(4) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:21:40 -0000 On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:09:53AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: A> Style-wise there is only the space after "(void )..." in ip_fw_pfil.c A> for the ng_tee case which is too much. Ok. A> I don't like the arbitrary back-passing of errors from ng_ipfw. I'm A> fine with EACCES, ENOMEM and ESRCH (if hook not connected) but nothing A> else. Getting back any other error is very confusing and non-intuitive A> when looking at the error of an application having packets sunk there. So you want "return (0)" at end of ng_ipfw_input()? My vote is against. Julian, Brooks? A> Why don't you prepend the m_tag within ip_fw2.c as altq and divert are A> doing it? Dummynet should do the same to get it consistent again. Not sure that this is good. These tags are foreign to ipfw, they belong to other facilities. A> Just to confirm it, NG_SEND_DATA_ONLY() queues the packet unconditionally A> to unwind the stack? No. The stack will be unwinded when packet travels thru netgraph and returned back to ng_ipfw node. A new ISR will start with ng_ipfw_rcvdata(). This mode is configured in ng_ipfw_connect(). -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE