From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jul 13 01:52:25 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA11663
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 01:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cheops.anu.edu.au (avalon@cheops.anu.edu.au [150.203.76.24])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA11658
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 01:52:21 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199707130852.BAA11658@hub.freebsd.org>
Received: by cheops.anu.edu.au
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA076603306; Sun, 13 Jul 1997 18:41:46 +1000
From: Darren Reed <avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: ipfw rules processing order when DIVERTing
To: archie@whistle.com (Archie Cobbs)
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 18:41:46 +1000 (EST)
Cc: julian@whistle.com, archie@whistle.com, owensc@enc.edu,
        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, ari.suutari@ps.carel.fi
In-Reply-To: <199707102329.QAA04387@bubba.whistle.com> from "Archie Cobbs" at Jul 10, 97 04:29:50 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In some mail from Archie Cobbs, sie said:
> Yes! ``It could start processing at the next higher number.''
> I agree with that :-)
> 
> The problem is that when the packet returns to the kernel from
> user-land, that bit of state that says "this packet has already
> seen rules 1-2000 (or whatever)" is lost, and you can't retrieve
> it. The only way to do this would be for the user-land process
> to send back some additional info that says "skip to rule 2000".
> 
> Doable, but .. not very pretty?

what if the packet is changed enough to make the outcome of starting at
N+1 different to starting at 1 ?