From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 5 23:35:01 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB2A516A4D0 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 2004 23:35:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028AD43D58 for ; Sun, 5 Sep 2004 23:35:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from andre@freebsd.org) Received: (qmail 27045 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2004 23:31:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO freebsd.org) ([62.48.0.54]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Sep 2004 23:31:58 -0000 Message-ID: <413BA2A3.6E1FD0DF@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 01:34:59 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sam Leffler References: <20040905205249.GA81337@cell.sick.ru> <20040905213823.GA81610@cell.sick.ru> <413B8AE7.F211C23@freebsd.org> <200409051623.59851.sam@errno.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: hackers@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: Luigi Rizzo cc: Gleb Smirnoff cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bridge callbacks in if_ed.c? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 23:35:02 -0000 Sam Leffler wrote: > > No. What will move to pfil_hooks is the firewalling within the bridge > > code and the layer2 ethernet firewalling. The bridging code as such > > will stay where it is. > > Well, that's what _you_ want to do :). What I started on last year was a > complete purge of special-purpose hooks in the network stack; replacing them > with pfil hooks (adding new hooks to do this). Revamping the bridge code was > part of this work and to do it I had to eliminate the API used by the ed > driver. As to whether you're planning to follow the path I started is > another matter (I pointed Gleb at you because you seemed to be going in that > direction and I figured you'd "see the light" after looking at the p4 branch > code I sent you :)). Ok, I still haven't looked at your code in p4. Will do that together with mlaier and then we'll make up our mind. ;-) P4web seems to be working fine again. Even if we take the one-step-at-a-time approach there is nothing preventing us from going the full way eventually and implementing your vision. -- Andre