Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:40:06 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: Eric Masson <e-masson@kisoft-services.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 5.1->5.2 Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040115172714.74950C-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <86oet497f6.fsf@t39bsdems.interne.kisoft-services.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Eric Masson wrote: > >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> writes: > > Robert> Moving to PFIL_HOOKS for all the "funky IP input/ouput" > > Will all available packet filters, including ipfw rely on PFIL_HOOKS or > not ? Yes; we to make it so that ipfw will also rely on PFIL_HOOKS to integrate with the IP stack, greatly reducing the quantity of #ifdef FOO in ip_input() and ip_output(). Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1040115172714.74950C-100000>