Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:45:53 +0300 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] ng_ipfw: node to glue together ipfw(4) and netgraph(4) Message-ID: <20050120134553.GB18668@cell.sick.ru> In-Reply-To: <41EE2933.4090404@elischer.org> References: <20050117200610.GA90866@cell.sick.ru> <20050118183558.GA15150@odin.ac.hmc.edu> <41ED8D63.8090205@elischer.org> <20050119084526.GA5119@cell.sick.ru> <41EE2933.4090404@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian, On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:32:35AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: J> I'm not sure they do two different things.. Each represents a place to J> send packets. J> If each active divert socket number had a pointer to the module to which it J> was attached then you could divert to either in-kernel netgraph targets or J> to userland socket based targets. Currently of you divert to a divert J> 'port number' and nothing is attached to it, the packet is dropped. J> If a divert socket is attached to it, it is sent ot teh socket. J> I would just suggest that is not a great leap of imagination that J> attaching to a hook named 3245 would attach a netgrpah hook to the ipfw J> code in the sam enamespace as the divert portnumber, and that a J> subsequent attempt to attach a divert socket to that port number woild J> fail. The packets diverted there would simply go to the netgraph hook J> instead of going to a socket or being dropped. Well, I've considered this. We are going to have these negatives with this change: 1) require divert loaded/compiled, when we are going to work with a completely different thing. 2) Acquire & drop lock on divert pcb info for each packet going into netgraph. 3) Extensively hack divert_packet()... Let me explain. The place where we can tell whether we have a socket diversion or a netgraph diversion, is at the very end of divert_packet(). Before this place many things are done, which does not apply to a netgraph diversion. This hacking may bring bugs into divert infrastructure, and add extra CPU cycles for case of netgraph forwarding. I think saving one keyword for ipfw2 doesn't worth this hacks. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050120134553.GB18668>