From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Tue Apr 7 17:35:04 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C40A277244 for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 17:35:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (br1.CN84in.dnsmgr.net [69.59.192.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48xZKz3zqdz410R; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 17:35:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 037HZ13H093415; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 10:35:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 037HZ1mK093414; Tue, 7 Apr 2020 10:35:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <202004071735.037HZ1mK093414@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: Committing one ipfw(8) userland patch In-Reply-To: To: lev@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 10:35:01 -0700 (PDT) CC: "Andrey V. Elsukov" , Neel Chauhan , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 48xZKz3zqdz410R X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-5.98 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.98)[-0.981,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 17:35:04 -0000 > On 07.04.2020 11:28, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > > >> I have one patch for the ipfw userland tool: > >> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D24234 > >> > >> This patch adds the src-ip4/dst-ip4 and src-ipv4/dst-ipv4 aliases for > >> src-ip/dst-ip commands respectively in IPFW. > >> > >> Could someone please commit this patch? > > > > Can you describe what is the benefit to have all these aliases, when > > after adding the rule you will still see other name. I think this makes > > it more confusing. > I think, {src|dst}-ip without version should exist only for backward > compatibility and, maybe, produce warnings. But that is not what this review does. I would be in support of changing the "official" names to src-ip4/dst-ip4/src-ip6/dst-ip6 and making src-ip/dst-ip a backwards compatible alias. > > Why? symmetry & consistency. And equal length of fields in rules for > different versions, too :-) > > Also, there are confusion with me/me4/me6. When `src-ip` is really > `src-ip4`, what does `me` mean? `me4`? or `me4 OR me6`? The parts of the rule are not cross applied so this is a non-question, me4 with a src-ip6 matches 0 packets no mater what the values are. One could write syntax checkers to flag this NOP condition. > -- > // Lev Serebryakov -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org