Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:45:53 -0700 From: Paul Traina <pst@jnx.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: sos@FreeBSD.org, rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com, archie@whistle.com, julian@whistle.com, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet in.h ip_fw.h ip_input.c ip_output.c Message-ID: <199608231745.KAA16117@base.jnx.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:14:46 PDT." <199608231714.KAA16063@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Good point. It saves re-doing a lot of work (e.g. protocol classification)
if you do it in the IP stack, but there's nothing *forcing* it to be IP
specific.
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet in.h ip_fw.h ip_input.c ip_output.c
> By not agressive enough, I mean I think you have the right idea, but the
> syntax
> for the hook should be something like:
>
> for (hook = iphooks.ipinput.lh_first; hook; hook = hook->next) {
> if (!(*hook)(IP_INPUT, &m, &ip))
> break;
> }
>
> Basicly, we make a linked list of hooks and call them in order until one of
> them swallows the packet or they're all complete.
>
> We do this for ip input processing, ip output processing, and perhaps as
> suggested, in the IP raw input (packet received) processing section of the
>>code.
>
> Then, if you want IP filtering, just add the hook to the generic "registry"
Question: is there any particular reason this should be IP specific?
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608231745.KAA16117>