Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:56:37 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: Ian FREISLICH <if@hetzner.co.za> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: New preview patch for ipfw to pfil_hooks conversion Message-ID: <40D961E5.92A2F554@freebsd.org> References: <E1Bd2mD-000I0a-00@hetzner.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ian FREISLICH wrote: > > Julian Elischer wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > 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.. > > I've mailed Luigi. I've mailed the patch to current (once) and > ipfw (twice). I submitted the PR on Max Laier's request 'so it > wouldn't get lost'. I then drew ipfw's attention to the PR at least > twice with a couple of weeks break in between. It's been mailed > to ipfw weekly since 2004/03/14 in the 'Current problem reports > assigned to you' from the FreeBSD bugmaster. I even mentioned this > to my friend Mark Murray who said that he'll mention it to Luigi > over beer. Still nothing until now (I don't know if the beer > happened though) and I suspect that it might make Andre's life a > little harder because I don't know how neatly it will fit in with > what he's doing. > > I guess I don't really mind if the patch isn't used, but some > feedback would be nice: 'It can't be used because your coding style > sucks' or 'the packet should be reinjected into the firewall in > such and such a way'. > > I know this is a volunteer project. It's a great project that I > want to contribute back to. I know that keeping private patches > will prevent me from tracking CURRENT or STABLE at some stage. > I know this is a bit emotional: it's just been a bit of a frustrating > experience because the committers keep on say 'we don't always have > the time to fix every little nit, but help us out and send some > patches'. Well, here are some patches. I know that patches and > other contributions have just been ignored in the past (just look > at the PR database as an example - its full of untapped patches and > fixes) and its a real turn-off. > > My thanks go to Andre for picking up the ball. Since I am rewriting that part of ipfw anyway for the conversion to pfil_hooks I am including a proper working 'tee' right away. -- Andre > I'm not sure responses to this should be cross-posted to freebsd-net. > > Ian > > -- > Ian Freislich > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?40D961E5.92A2F554>