From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 23 00:20:34 2004 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 E87B316A4CE; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:20:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C86E43D58; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:20:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from interjet.elischer.org ([24.7.73.28]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with ESMTP id <20040623002032016005q8s5e>; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 00:20:33 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA59240; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:20:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: Ian FREISLICH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Andre Oppermann Subject: Re: New preview patch for ipfw to pfil_hooks conversion 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, 23 Jun 2004 00:20:35 -0000 On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > Andre Oppermann wrote: > > Here is the next preview patch for the ipfw to pfil_hooks conversion: > > > > http://www.nrg4u.com/freebsd/ipfw-pfilhooks-and-more-20040621.diff > > > > This patch significantly cleans up ip_input.c and ip_output.c. > > That would be a very a nice thing, but it looks like this breaks > the patch that I submitted (kern/64240) which fixes the acknowledged > problem with 'ipfw tee' accepting packets instead of copying them > to the divert port and then processing the packet according to the > rest of the rule set. > > There have been about 5 PRs (most with patches) in the past years > which all claim to fix this problem indicating that here is a need > for a fix. We rely on the fix in kern/64240 to collect traffic > accounting information for billing and statistical purposes. There > hasn't been much interest from the committers in having a look at > this even though the work has already been done. > > Now that you're actively working on that part of the source, would > it be possible to take a look? I would also be happy to create a > new patch to fix this problem against ipfw with pfilhooks if that's > what it's going to take to get a fix committed. > > Ian > > -- > Ian Freislich hmmm I guess the pathc should be pointed out to luigi or an ipfw person.. it's probably not that you're being ignored it's probably that no-one who has his fingers in ipfw noticed it.. julian