From owner-freebsd-ipfw Mon Jun 24 22:47:35 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EAF137B408 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:47:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blossom.cjclark.org ([12.234.91.48]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020625054730.NQUS10417.sccrmhc02.attbi.com@blossom.cjclark.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 05:47:30 +0000 Received: from blossom.cjclark.org (localhost. [127.0.0.1]) by blossom.cjclark.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g5P5lTJK050383; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:47:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from crist.clark@attbi.com) Received: (from cjc@localhost) by blossom.cjclark.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g5P5lRAY050382; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:47:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: blossom.cjclark.org: cjc set sender to crist.clark@attbi.com using -f Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:47:27 -0700 From: "Crist J. Clark" To: Luigi Rizzo Cc: ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: do we need IPFIREWALL_FORWARD to be optional ? Message-ID: <20020624224727.A50149@blossom.cjclark.org> Reply-To: "Crist J. Clark" References: <20020621104900.C81994@iguana.icir.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020621104900.C81994@iguana.icir.org>; from rizzo@icir.org on Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 10:49:00AM -0700 X-URL: http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ Sender: owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 10:49:00AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > I am fixing that part of the netinet/ stack, and i wonder why > do we need to make this optional. > > Once the global variables holding its state are removed, all the > code reduces to a small set of short blocks (which are never entered > if you do not have fwd rules) scattered in ip_input.c ip_output.c > ip_fw.c and tcp_input.c, and I strongly believe that the pain and > obfuscation of having it conditionally compiled is a lot worse than > the modest code size increase. > > Unless there are strong objections, I am going to make it > standard. If you feel up to it, unconditionalize pfil(9) stuff too. -- Crist J. Clark | cjclark@alum.mit.edu | cjclark@jhu.edu http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | cjc@freebsd.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ipfw" in the body of the message