Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 16:02:23 +0700 From: Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPDIVERT Message-ID: <20030430160222.A41678@iclub.nsu.ru> In-Reply-To: <20030430004245.B95389@xorpc.icir.org>; from rizzo@icir.org on Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 12:42:45AM -0700 References: <20030430023640.A22257@iclub.nsu.ru> <20030429200529.GA71528@sunbay.com> <20030430143114.A38982@iclub.nsu.ru> <20030430004245.B95389@xorpc.icir.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
hi, there! On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 12:42:45AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > > I have a suggestion to build GENERIC and ipfw.ko with IPDIVERT by default > > > > or change IPDIVERT to NOIPDIVERT and build boot kernels with NOIPDIVERT. > > > > The main goal is to allow to use NAT with stock kernels and ipfw.ko. > ... > > AFAIK there is no possibility to add IPPROTO_DIVERT dynamically to > > inetsw[]. Some fields of 'struct ipq' are under #ifdef IPDIVERT as well. > > ipfw code under #ifdef IPDIVERT are just `case' labels and strings in printf's > > (like "ipdivert enabled"). In other words is it really > > worth splitting ipdivert into separate .ko module? Changing IPDIVERT to > > NOIPDIVERT will be cleaner in my opinion. > > indeed, i believe we should make the main part of IPDIVERT processing > (in ip_input.c, ip_output.c, ip_fw2.c and ip_var.h) non-optional > (this would also allow a better realignment of fields in struct ipq) > and only make the code in ip_divert.c a module ok, how can I add IPPROTO_DIVERT dynamically? Is it ok to have dummy usrreqs there and to overwrite IPPROTO_DIVERT array element upon module load/unload? /fjoe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030430160222.A41678>