From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 1 05:41:48 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B088A106567A; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 05:41:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from luigi@onelab2.iet.unipi.it) Received: from onelab2.iet.unipi.it (onelab2.iet.unipi.it [131.114.59.238]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739D98FC15; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 05:41:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by onelab2.iet.unipi.it (Postfix, from userid 275) id 582E47300A; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 07:58:30 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 07:58:30 +0200 From: Luigi Rizzo To: Julian Elischer Message-ID: <20110701055830.GA72689@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> References: <201106291006.p5TA6w0m089164@svn.freebsd.org> <4E0D57C4.4070502@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E0D57C4.4070502@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, "Andrey V. Elsukov" , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r223666 - in head: sbin/ipfw sys/netinet sys/netinet/ipfw X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 05:41:48 -0000 On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:14:44PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > On 6/29/11 3:06 AM, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > >Author: ae > >Date: Wed Jun 29 10:06:58 2011 > >New Revision: 223666 > >URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/223666 > > > >Log: > > Add new rule actions "call" and "return" to ipfw. They make > > possible to organize subroutines with rules. > > > > The "call" action saves the current rule number in the internal > > stack and rules processing continues from the first rule with > > specified number (similar to skipto action). If later a rule with > > "return" action is encountered, the processing returns to the first > > rule with number of "call" rule saved in the stack plus one or higher. > > > > Submitted by: Vadim Goncharov > > Discussed by: ipfw@, luigi@ > > > >Modified: > what happens if the return target is removed in the meanwhile? i suppose it has the same vulnerability of skipto: if the target goes away you continue from the next rule.