Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 17:20:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Ian FREISLICH <if@hetzner.co.za> Cc: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: New preview patch for ipfw to pfil_hooks conversion Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0406221718430.59196-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <E1BcgeP-000DXq-00@hetzner.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0406221718430.59196-100000>