Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 14:04:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: luigi@FreeBSD.ORG, ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: CFR: patch for bin/18351: ipfw add with no rule number returns the wrong rule number Message-ID: <200010112104.e9BL4Oe54091@bubba.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <20001011180742.A85291@sunbay.com> "from Ruslan Ermilov at Oct 11, 2000 06:07:42 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ruslan Ermilov writes: > > Responsible-Changed-From-To: luigi->ru > > Responsible-Changed-By: ru > > Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Oct 11 07:40:11 PDT 2000 > > Responsible-Changed-Why: > > I have a working patch. > > > This patch simply changes the IP_FW_ADD sockopt from SOPT_SET to SOPT_GET, > thus allowing IPFW to return the assigned rule number back to userland in > case it was not specified explicitly. Does this patch look OK to you? Ugh.. 'get' is not exactly intuitive.. though I agree knowing the rule number is nice... I think instead of overloading 'get' (and breaking all user-land programs that do 'set') a better approach would be to add a new sockopt IP_FW_RULENUM that would retrieve the previously used 'automatic' rule number. This would be backward compatible and also more intuitive. > Do I need to bump the __FreeBSD_version or not? In any case, YES. -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200010112104.e9BL4Oe54091>