Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:11:48 -0700 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Diego Linke - GAMK <linke@calnet.com.br> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I have four ideia for IPFW2 Message-ID: <20030715121148.A2668@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20030715151042.698b355a.linke@calnet.com.br>; from linke@calnet.com.br on Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 03:10:42PM -0300 References: <3F132237.4010604@freebsdbrasil.com.br> <20030715004113.A99565@xorpc.icir.org> <20030715120646.03f26167.linke@calnet.com.br> <20030715101516.A87982@xorpc.icir.org> <20030715151042.698b355a.linke@calnet.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 03:10:42PM -0300, Diego Linke - GAMK wrote: > Hi, > > > you can use spare fields in ipfw_insn o; for that > > You dont want us to change ip_fw.h, or you only mean that ipfw_insn_log struct should not be modified? > > Maybe a new struct could be created, say, ipfw_insn_log_ext, or touching the .h would brake the POLA? There is spare storage in ipfw_insn (the arg1 field) which can be used by individual instructions to store flags and other data if they fit. The 'extended' flag for log instructions would certainly fit there, and would make the change completely backward compatible, which is a big advantage from every point of view. cheers luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030715121148.A2668>