From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 23 18:58:08 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 481A516A4B3 for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:58:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [66.127.85.87]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360FA43FBD for ; Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:58:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from melange.errno.com (sam@melange.errno.com [66.127.85.82]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8O1w00x038534 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:58:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:58:00 -0700 From: Sam Leffler To: Michael Nottebrock Message-ID: <962428939.1064343480@melange.errno.com> In-Reply-To: <3F70F5CF.2070604@gmx.net> References: <933600166.1064314652@melange.errno.com> <3F70AECE.9030809@gmx.net> <944843723.1064325895@melange.errno.com> <3F70F5CF.2070604@gmx.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.3 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: PFIL_HOOKS/ipfilter changes X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 01:58:08 -0000 > Sam Leffler wrote: >>> Could we add PFIL_HOOKS to GENERIC, while we're at it? Please? >> >> >> Eventually this will happen. Almost certainly in time for 5.2. > > It was due for 5.0-RELEASE, it hasn't made it in for 5.1-RELEASE and post > 5.1-R reminders have been ignored on this list as well. This is starting > to become rather ridiculous. Why not just do it? It was not "due for 5.0" or any subsequent release. It was requested by certain developers and I requested that they demonstrate that adding it to the GENERIC system would not noticeably impact non-PFIL_HOOKS users. I intend to convert certain network subsystems to use PFIL_HOOKS instead of their (current) adhoc techniques. This will mean that PFIL_HOOKS will be a necessary part of the system and so will be in the GENERIC kernel. Sam