Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:25:48 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>, Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> Cc: kjc@csl.sony.co.jp, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bandwidth throttling etc. Message-ID: <19980428172548.21094@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199804280857.KAA26098@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>; from Luigi Rizzo on Tue, Apr 28, 1998 at 10:57:56AM %2B0200 References: <3540D3AE.52BFA1D7@whistle.com> <199804280857.KAA26098@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 28, 1998 at 10:57:56AM +0200, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > Playing with ipfirewall and mbufs, i am hitting a problem related to > the size of mbufs. > > In my implementation, i need to add a couple of fields (6 bytes total) > to the struct ip_fw, bringing its size to 112 bytes. > > setsockopt() fails for sizes>108 bytes. > > there are two ways i can save the space: > > 1) reduce IP_FW_MAX_PORTS to 7 instead of 10 > 2) move counters and statistic info (timestamp) to the end > of the struct ip_fw, and allow setsockopt() to work only > on the initial part of the structure. > > suggestions ? The first one is a quick solution to the problem, i am > just not sure how widespread are rules using 8,9,10 ports (where there > is a difference between new and old behaviour). Search for 'On a new IPFW interface, w/potentially wider applications' in the archives, and tell me what you think. This is a description of a solution for the problem, which also get rid of the entire problem of the IPFW structure changing (disconnecting the userland program from the actual structure). Eivind. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980428172548.21094>