From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 10 11:03:38 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-src@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA49116A4CE; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:03:38 +0000 (GMT) Received: from relay.bestcom.ru (relay.bestcom.ru [217.72.144.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E4D43D39; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:03:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: from cell.sick.ru (root@cell.sick.ru [217.72.144.68]) by relay.bestcom.ru (8.13.1/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j1AB3Z74091065 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:03:36 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: from cell.sick.ru (glebius@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j1AB3Z62021435 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:03:35 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id j1AB3Y7o021434; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:03:34 +0300 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.sick.ru: glebius set sender to glebius@freebsd.org using -f Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:03:34 +0300 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Andre Oppermann Message-ID: <20050210110334.GB21237@cell.sick.ru> References: <200502051206.j15C6YOY015206@repoman.freebsd.org> <420B3CDA.9033810C@networx.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <420B3CDA.9033810C@networx.ch> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version devel-20050125, clamav-milter version 0.80ff on relay.bestcom.ru X-Virus-Status: Clean cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/ipfw ipfw2.c src/sys/netgraph ng_ipfw.cng_ipfw.h src/sys/netinet ip_fw.h ip_fw2.c ip_fw_pfil.c X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:03:38 -0000 On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 11:52:10AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: A> I have not withdrawn my objections to the non-decoupling upon entering You haven't replied my email and reminder during more than a week. On last mail you have said, that you are going to be online in one day. A> into netgraph. I think you should decouple the stack upon entering A> netgraph and not when returning back to ng_ipfw. It is not neccessary A> to go back the same way and I can imagine several normal setups where A> packets may come back through another way leading to recursions and a A> very (too) deep stack. NG_SEND_DATA_ONLY() doesn't seem to decouple A> it but it's hard to follow the netgraph code and I'm not too used to A> it. If you can show that NG_SEND_DATA_ONLY() does in fact decouple A> it then I withdraw this objection. Andre, all other edge netgraph nodes does not queue packet for ISR. "Edge node" stands for a node which is an interface between netgraph and other networking subsystem. It has been proved in practice, that it is not needed. And in theory, there is no way ro recurse. You say, that you can describe a normal setup which leads to recursion. I can't. So pls describe it. A> The other thing is the passing back of errors from netgraph. Only A> certain kinds of errors should be reported back and others converted A> to some default error. It is very confusing for an application A> developer to get a very (from his POV) non-sensical error message A> like ENOTCONN when writing on a socket. He doesn't have knowledge A> of the ipfw/netgraph stuff that happens in the kernel and it makes A> debugging extremely confusing. In the he blames FreeBSDs socket A> implementation whereas it was only some error in setting up the A> netgraph by the administrator. I have already replied this in net@ list. OK, I'll ask again: Do you want ng_ipfw_rcvdata() to end with "return (0)"? A> You've got others to review you stuff and committed it. But it was A> pretty clear that I wasn't fully happy with the code yet so please A> don't put my name into the reviewed-by line then. You were not responsive more than ten days. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE