Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 28 Jul 2006 00:06:04 +0200
From:      Max Laier <max@love2party.net>
To:        freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Cc:        andre@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, "Christian S.J. Peron" <csjp@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: [patch] RFC: allow divert from layer 2 ipfw (e.g. bridge)
Message-ID:  <200607280006.11151.max@love2party.net>
In-Reply-To: <44C93425.60001@elischer.org>
References:  <44C7B5E2.5080001@elischer.org> <44C92278.5000901@FreeBSD.org> <44C93425.60001@elischer.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart3585932.ycM77z0gHq
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thursday 27 July 2006 23:46, Julian Elischer wrote:
> 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 b=
ut
> >>> 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.

I was referring to the changes in bdg_forward() and ether_output_frame() wh=
ich=20
could as well be placed inside a L2-hook inside ip_fw_pfil.c (where they=20
belong IMHO).  We went through great length to clean the ip_input/output pa=
th=20
off the IPFW/DIVERT entanglement.  I don't think we should create the=20
same "mess" in L2 now, just to clean it up later.

That said, I'm not opposed against L2 divert or anything.  I just wanted to=
=20
remind everybody about the plan of L2-pfil hooks that we talked about in th=
e=20
past.  I would love to see this happen prior the divert changes.

=2D-=20
/"\  Best regards,                      | mlaier@freebsd.org
\ /  Max Laier                          | ICQ #67774661
 X   http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/  | mlaier@EFnet
/ \  ASCII Ribbon Campaign              | Against HTML Mail and News

--nextPart3585932.ycM77z0gHq
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQBEyTjTXyyEoT62BG0RAmqoAJ9I5WX1bTRawKTCik5lcMyMElt48gCfYePX
s/uHfbvSN6YXnQpWzoqRfPI=
=YEk2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart3585932.ycM77z0gHq--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200607280006.11151.max>