From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Sat Apr 11 04:47:09 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 C7D482AE498 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2020 04:47:09 +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 48zj645vfwz47DR; Sat, 11 Apr 2020 04:47:08 +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 03B4l1In020211; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 21:47:01 -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 03B4l0x0020210; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 21:47:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <202004110447.03B4l0x0020210@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: Committing one ipfw(8) userland patch In-Reply-To: To: Neel Chauhan Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 21:47:00 -0700 (PDT) CC: lev@freebsd.org, "Rodney W. Grimes" , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, "Andrey V. Elsukov" 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: 48zj645vfwz47DR X-Spamd-Bar: + Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net has no SPF policy when checking 69.59.192.140) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net X-Spamd-Result: default: False [1.24 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[dnsmgr.net]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.04)[0.045,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.27)[0.266,0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:13868, ipnet:69.59.192.0/19, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(0.03)[ip: (0.13), ipnet: 69.59.192.0/19(0.06), asn: 13868(0.03), country: US(-0.05)]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] 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: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 04:47:09 -0000 > Thank you all for your feedback. > > Using the same Phabricator revision here: > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D24234 > > I have added the src-ip4/dst-ip4 and src-ipv4/dst-ipv4 specifiers and > made src-ip/dst-ip dual-stack, to be consistent with me/me4/me6 > described in this thread. > > Could you all please give your opinions on it? I took a look at this and D24021 and am a bit confused as no changes are actually being made to the kernel ipfw code, so how does it know which are now dual vs single stack. As far as I can see no actual change would be experienced by the me/me4/me6 changes as they are all simply encoded as O_IP_{SRC,DST}_ME when it gets to the kernel. It could be I am missing something, it has been a very long time since I looked at the inards of ipfw. Also I am not sure if you want to attempt to flag no-op cases like ipfw add ip4 from me6 to any which I believe would be allowed and create a rule that never matched anything. (Actually with the current code I think it would still match local ipv4 address, which arguable is wrong.) > -Neel > > On 2020-04-10 04:10, Lev Serebryakov wrote: > > On 10.04.2020 13:46, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > > > >> On 07.04.2020 20:35, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >> I also think this idea sounds better. > > > > +1 I am glad people liked this solution, lets make sure it is implemented cleanly and in a 100% backwards compatible way, breaking ipfw rule sets is frowned upon by users. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org