From owner-freebsd-current Fri Nov 16 16:24:44 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mail.vicor-nb.com (bigwoop.vicor-nb.com [208.206.78.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9D3E37B416; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:24:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from vicor-nb.com (julian.vicor-nb.com [208.206.78.97]) by mail.vicor-nb.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E1AF1B219; Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:24:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3BF5AE42.49D5D83B@vicor-nb.com> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:24:34 -0800 From: Julian Elischer Organization: VICOR X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.3-RELEASE i386) X-Accept-Language: en, hu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: Peter Wemm , current@FreeBSD.ORG, net@FreeBSD.ORG, wollman@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: re-entrancy and the IP stack. References: <3BF5A5D5.3D408744@vicor-nb.com> <20011117000251.A13B93811@overcee.netplex.com.au> <20011116181618.A13393@elvis.mu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > * Peter Wemm [011116 18:02] wrote: > > Julian Elischer wrote: > > [..] > > > What is needed is obviously a 'per packet' storage location > > > for those things, defined in a "per protocol family" manner. > > > > > > Luigi has already tried this scheme by defining a > > > dummynet specific mbuf type that can be prepended to the > > > front of packets. What I suggest is to extend this > > > to defining a MT_PROTOSTORAGE. (or similar) mbuf type > > > that generic networking code is educated to ignore, > > > and that protocols can use to pass packet-specific state > > > information from one place to another. > > > > Uhh.. no thanks. Whatever you do, do *NOT* abuse the mbuf system > > for this. We went to a lot of trouble (well, Garrett specifically) > > to rid the stacks of this obscenity. Do *NOT* generalize it and undo > > it. MT_DUMMYNET must die, not be propagated elsewhere. > > > > If you want to have some general storage mechnaism, do *not* use mbufs > > for it. > > *cough* > kthread_setspecific() > *cough* > kthread_getspecific() > *cough* packets can be re-ordered due to queueing etc. (* we should not be trying to decide at this point what a 3rd part module may or may not want to do). I think it needs to be storage associated with the packet. > > or just fix the code to pass this around as an extra paramter. > > -- > -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] > 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," > start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' > http://www.morons.org/rants/gpl-harmful.php3 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message