Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:38:10 -0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW #2] ng_ipfw: node to glue together ipfw(4) and netgraph(4) Message-ID: <41F6A022.5060708@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20050125082136.GC57248@cell.sick.ru> References: <20050124100717.GA47663@cell.sick.ru> <41F5FED1.B6EFD246@freebsd.org> <20050125082136.GC57248@cell.sick.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:09:53AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: >A> Style-wise there is only the space after "(void )..." in ip_fw_pfil.c >A> for the ng_tee case which is too much. > >Ok. > >A> I don't like the arbitrary back-passing of errors from ng_ipfw. I'm >A> fine with EACCES, ENOMEM and ESRCH (if hook not connected) but nothing >A> else. Getting back any other error is very confusing and non-intuitive >A> when looking at the error of an application having packets sunk there. > >So you want "return (0)" at end of ng_ipfw_input()? My vote is against. >Julian, Brooks? > I don't think that errors should be "sometimes". we all expect udp to silently discard packets.. and queued data can not return status.. If you want to return the fact that a queue is full somewhere, then we have messages for that. > >A> Why don't you prepend the m_tag within ip_fw2.c as altq and divert are >A> doing it? Dummynet should do the same to get it consistent again. > >Not sure that this is good. These tags are foreign to ipfw, they belong >to other facilities. > I have no comment > >A> Just to confirm it, NG_SEND_DATA_ONLY() queues the packet unconditionally >A> to unwind the stack? > >No. The stack will be unwinded when packet travels thru netgraph and returned >back to ng_ipfw node. A new ISR will start with ng_ipfw_rcvdata(). This mode >is configured in ng_ipfw_connect(). > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41F6A022.5060708>