Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 00:50:52 +0300 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org> To: Sergey Kandaurov <pluknet@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r278831 - head/sys/netpfil/pf Message-ID: <20150217215052.GT15484@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAE-mSOKs-GW8z__kQ=t%2B1Rhf84hR07JBvxG0U10mRtj9mmj-qQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201502160338.t1G3cRlX042385@svn.freebsd.org> <20150217173134.GZ1953@funkthat.com> <CAE-mSOKs-GW8z__kQ=t%2B1Rhf84hR07JBvxG0U10mRtj9mmj-qQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 01:40:36AM +0400, Sergey Kandaurov wrote: S> On 17 February 2015 at 20:31, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> wrote: S> > Gleb Smirnoff wrote this message on Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 03:38 +0000: S> >> Author: glebius S> >> Date: Mon Feb 16 03:38:27 2015 S> >> New Revision: 278831 S> >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/278831 S> >> S> >> Log: S> >> Update the pf fragment handling code to closer match recent OpenBSD. S> >> That partially fixes IPv6 fragment handling. Thanks to Kristof for S> >> working on that. S> >> S> >> Submitted by: Kristof Provost S> >> Tested by: peter S> >> Differential Revision: D1765 S> > S> > Looks like pf_flush_fragments still called in !INET case, though only S> > defined for INET case: S> > /scratch/tmp/jmg/src.head/sys/modules/pf/../../netpfil/pf/pf_norm.c:385:3: error: implicit declaration of function 'pf_flush_fragments' is invalid in C99 [-Werror,-Wimplicit-function-declaration] S> > pf_flush_fragments(); S> > S> > when compiling LINT-NOINET kernel.. S> S> With the changes attached I got all three kernels with both cc compiled S> (tested on MINI w/ MODULES_OVERRIDE=pf). Basically, S> - pf_flush_fragments is improperly INET-only S> - pf_find_fragment is properly declared, but its body is under INET S> - pf_refragment6 / pf_reassemble6 are properly under INET6, S> which is also under INET (the latter is wrong). S> - bonus: some functions may be / were static'ized. Thanks, looks very close to patch that I'm build testing now. -- Totus tuus, Glebius.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150217215052.GT15484>