Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:21:36 +0300 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW #2] ng_ipfw: node to glue together ipfw(4) and netgraph(4) Message-ID: <20050125082136.GC57248@cell.sick.ru> In-Reply-To: <41F5FED1.B6EFD246@freebsd.org> References: <20050124100717.GA47663@cell.sick.ru> <41F5FED1.B6EFD246@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:09:53AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: A> Style-wise there is only the space after "(void )..." in ip_fw_pfil.c A> for the ng_tee case which is too much. Ok. A> I don't like the arbitrary back-passing of errors from ng_ipfw. I'm A> fine with EACCES, ENOMEM and ESRCH (if hook not connected) but nothing A> else. Getting back any other error is very confusing and non-intuitive A> when looking at the error of an application having packets sunk there. So you want "return (0)" at end of ng_ipfw_input()? My vote is against. Julian, Brooks? A> Why don't you prepend the m_tag within ip_fw2.c as altq and divert are A> doing it? Dummynet should do the same to get it consistent again. Not sure that this is good. These tags are foreign to ipfw, they belong to other facilities. A> Just to confirm it, NG_SEND_DATA_ONLY() queues the packet unconditionally A> to unwind the stack? No. The stack will be unwinded when packet travels thru netgraph and returned back to ng_ipfw node. A new ISR will start with ng_ipfw_rcvdata(). This mode is configured in ng_ipfw_connect(). -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050125082136.GC57248>