Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:12:51 +0200 From: Marko Zec <zec@icir.org> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: perforce@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 118399 for review Message-ID: <200704210612.52050.zec@icir.org> In-Reply-To: <200704191549.13955.max@love2party.net> References: <200704190739.l3J7dFng023292@repoman.freebsd.org> <200704191549.13955.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 19 April 2007 15:49, you wrote: > On Thursday 19 April 2007 09:39, Marko Zec wrote: > > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=118399 > > > > Change 118399 by zec@zec_tca51 on 2007/04/19 07:38:43 > > > > Fix to allow compilation with nooptions VIMAGE. > > > > Affected files ... > > > > .. //depot/projects/vimage/src/sys/contrib/pf/net/pf_ioctl.c#5 edit > > > > Differences ... > > > > ==== //depot/projects/vimage/src/sys/contrib/pf/net/pf_ioctl.c#5 > > (text+ko) ==== > > > > @@ -401,10 +401,14 @@ > > callout_reset(&V_pf_expire_to, my_timeout[PFTM_INTERVAL] * hz, > > pf_purge_timeout, curvnet); > > > > -if (curvnet == &vnet_0) { > > +#ifdef VIMAGE > > + if (curvnet == &vnet_0) { > > +#endif > > pf_normalize_init(); > > pf_pfil_hooked = 0; > > -} > > +#ifdef VIMAGE > > + } > > +#endif > > I don't quite understand this one. I'd believe that pf_pfil_hooked > should be virtualized as well. Otherwise you can only enable/hook > all instances at once. I think you're right that this needs more work. Note that virtualizing pf_pfil_hooked would be incorrect at this point, given that the pfil_hooks infrastructure (lists) are not virtualized. So either we should implement a per-stack instance of pfil_hooks (in net/pfil.c), or in pf we should register / deregister hook handles only once, in pf_load() and pf_unload(), and dump the pf_pfil_hooked flag away... Marko
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200704210612.52050.zec>