From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 27 21:46:15 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org 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 37C3316A50A; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:46:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=julian=356e8a28d@elischer.org) Received: from a50.ironport.com (a50.ironport.com [63.251.108.112]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8EBE43D49; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:46:14 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from prvs=julian=356e8a28d@elischer.org) Received: from unknown (HELO [192.168.2.4]) ([10.251.60.53]) by a50.ironport.com with ESMTP; 27 Jul 2006 14:46:15 -0700 Message-ID: <44C93425.60001@elischer.org> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:46:13 -0700 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060414 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Christian S.J. Peron" References: <44C7B5E2.5080001@elischer.org> <200607271346.12491.max@love2party.net> <44C92278.5000901@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <44C92278.5000901@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Max Laier , andre@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [patch] RFC: allow divert from layer 2 ipfw (e.g. bridge) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:46:15 -0000 Christian S.J. Peron wrote: > Max Laier wrote: > >> On Wednesday 26 July 2006 20:35, Julian Elischer wrote: >> >> >>> This code is running on quite a few systems but in a very limited >>> environment that may not test all possibilities.. >>> >>> Does anyone have comments or suggestions as to changes that I might >>> make >>> for checkin into generic FreeBSD? It was originally written for 4.x but >>> with 6.x in mind. >>> It is now running on 6.1 and seems to be ok so far. >>> >>> Certainly I am interested in hearing from Robert and Luigi and I am >>> particularly interested in >>> what people think on how this will handle locking/SMP difficulies. >>> >> >> >> Instead of putting more special processing to every L2-entry point in >> the system, I'd prefer if we could finally get round to L2 pfil >> hooks. That would make it much easier to add such functionality in a >> common hook function and use it everywhere. >> >> > > I agree with Max here, I think it's time we look at getting together > pfil hooks for layer 2. I would be interested in doing the leg work > here if you guys are willing to review it. > The divert code changes are sort-of irrelevant to this discussion. it adds an ISR to handle divert input from L2.