Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:12:16 +0100 From: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Cc: Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net> Subject: Re: Heads up --- Thinking about UDP and tunneling Message-ID: <200812111412.16757.max@love2party.net> In-Reply-To: <24BD4A21-E10D-4E09-8C33-3FCF930A0495@lakerest.net> References: <D72E9703-C8E7-4A21-A71E-A4B4C2D7E8F4@lakerest.net> <200811201450.30016.max@love2party.net> <24BD4A21-E10D-4E09-8C33-3FCF930A0495@lakerest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 11 December 2008 13:50:39 Randall Stewart wrote: > All: > > Ok here is what I have come up with.. going along the > lines of Max's suggestion.. its pretty clean I think. > > Comments would be most welcome.. > > The only thing possibly a bit dodgy is that > > 1) UDP has no per-protocol block. > 2) Instead of creating one, I am using the block pointer in the inp > as the function pointer for the tunneling. > > What this means if we EVERY did add a per protocol structure for > UDP we would need to move the function pointer in there.. > > The nice thing it does is make it so we have no structural changes to > the code... i.e. complete compatibility... no changes to inp or > other UDP structures :-) > > > Here is the patch.. please send comments ;-D I like it, though I have no idea what the implications of using the block pointer might be. One thing about the patch: What about the multi-/broadcast cases? I think if we introduce this, we want to make sure it works there as well - no? And finally, is there a potential race with setting the function and data arriving at the socket - should udp_set_kernel_tunneling maybe check that the socket isn't bound yet? -- /"\ Best regards, | mlaier@freebsd.org \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200812111412.16757.max>