Re: [TEST/REVIEW] ng_ipfw: node to glue together ipfw(4) and netgraph(4)

From: Brooks Davis (brooks_at_one-eyed-alien.net)
Date: 01/20/05

  • Next message: Andre Oppermann: "Re: [TEST/REVIEW] ng_ipfw: node to glue together ipfw(4) andnetgraph(4)" 
    Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:34:32 -0800
To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>

    On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 04:45:53PM +0300, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
    > Julian,
    >
    > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 01:32:35AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
    > J> I'm not sure they do two different things.. Each represents a place to
    > J> send packets.
    > J> If each active divert socket number had a pointer to the module to which it
    > J> was attached then you could divert to either in-kernel netgraph targets or
    > J> to userland socket based targets. Currently of you divert to a divert
    > J> 'port number' and nothing is attached to it, the packet is dropped.
    > J> If a divert socket is attached to it, it is sent ot teh socket.
    > J> I would just suggest that is not a great leap of imagination that
    > J> attaching to a hook named 3245 would attach a netgrpah hook to the ipfw
    > J> code in the sam enamespace as the divert portnumber, and that a
    > J> subsequent attempt to attach a divert socket to that port number woild
    > J> fail. The packets diverted there would simply go to the netgraph hook
    > J> instead of going to a socket or being dropped.
    >
    > Well, I've considered this. We are going to have these negatives with this change:
    >
    > 1) require divert loaded/compiled, when we are going to work with a completely
    > different thing.
    > 2) Acquire & drop lock on divert pcb info for each packet going into netgraph.
    > 3) Extensively hack divert_packet()... Let me explain. The place where we can tell
    > whether we have a socket diversion or a netgraph diversion, is at the very end
    > of divert_packet(). Before this place many things are done, which does not apply
    > to a netgraph diversion.
    > This hacking may bring bugs into divert infrastructure, and add extra CPU cycles
    > for case of netgraph forwarding. I think saving one keyword for ipfw2 doesn't
    > worth this hacks.

    I think the code should be committed more or less as is. I think the
    netgraph and divert features are relatively orthogonal.

    -- Brooks 

    -- 
Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529  9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4

  • Next message: Andre Oppermann: "Re: [TEST/REVIEW] ng_ipfw: node to glue together ipfw(4) andnetgraph(4)"

    Relevant Pages