Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 18:03:18 -0600 (CST) From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> To: julian@vicor-nb.com, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: re-entrancy and the IP stack. Message-ID: <200111170003.fAH03Ia60157@prism.flugsvamp.com> In-Reply-To: <local.mail.freebsd-current/3BF5A5D5.3D408744@vicor-nb.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <local.mail.freebsd-current/3BF5A5D5.3D408744@vicor-nb.com> you write: >As another example, the ipfw code uses a couple of static >variables too, in the 'fwd' code amongst other places.. > >What is needed is obviously a 'per packet' storage location >for those things, defined in a "per protocol family" manner. > >Luigi has already tried this scheme by defining a >dummynet specific mbuf type that can be prepended to the >front of packets. What I suggest is to extend this >to defining a MT_PROTOSTORAGE. (or similar) mbuf type >that generic networking code is educated to ignore, >and that protocols can use to pass packet-specific state >information from one place to another. Um, no please. MT_DUMMYNET is a bad hack that should be removed (and which I've partly done in one of my trees). I would rather not perpetuate this, it causes more problems than it is worth. I believe that Garrett went in a while back and removed all the abuses of mbuf (used to store sockaddrs and the like), and this would appear to be a step backward. I don't disagree that there are many static variables that need to be cleaned up, but I don't believe that this is the right approach. -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200111170003.fAH03Ia60157>