Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:37:13 -0700
From:      Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
To:        "Christian S.J. Peron" <csjp@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        freebsd-net@freebsd.org, "Bruce M. Simpson" <bms@incunabulum.net>, rwatson@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: divert and deadlock issues
Message-ID:  <46AFD5B9.4080602@elischer.org>
In-Reply-To: <20070801001908.GA8822@sub>
References:  <20070731162515.GA3684@sub> <46AF7E57.5020209@incunabulum.net> <20070731204156.GA7614@sub> <46AFB6C9.20401@incunabulum.net> <46AFC441.2070502@elischer.org> <20070801001908.GA8822@sub>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Christian S.J. Peron wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 04:22:41PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
> [..]
>> Originally we wanted a way to be able to inject any kind of 
>> ip packet that could be generated, because the aim was to 
>> allow a user agent to do arbitrary processing on packets. however
>> to be really correct, a divert injection should occur at teh position of 
>> the firewall
>> where diversion occurs but there is no way to do that and anyhow they need
>> to get some of the internal state added to them before they get there, so 
>> puting them in via ip_output seemed the way to go.
>>
>> I've never had much to do with multicast, so I'm not sure if it makes sense
>> to inject there, but if you wanted to divert multicast packets
>> and change them slightly, and then reinject them, it would be a blow 
>> to discover that you couldn't.
> 
> Well, it's still the intent to keep the ability to divert and re-inject
> multicast packets.  This change would basically say: "You cant specify
> multicast options via the divert socket". Which in practice doesn't
> happen anyway (where I looked).
> 
> I dont think we should be specifying multicast options on divert sockets.
> It's not the right place to be manipulating multicast parameters.  Multicast
> parameters should be set on the sockets that originally transmitted or
> received the packets.  I dont think divert falls into this category.
> 
ok

if you can divert out a multicast packet, fix something in it, 
and then reinject it, and have it DTRT then that's fine.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46AFD5B9.4080602>