Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 12 Jan 2015 11:21:18 -0500
From:      John Baldwin <john@baldwin.cx>
To:        Bryan Venteicher <bryanv@freebsd.org>
Cc:        "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, John Nielsen <lists@jnielsen.net>, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r272886 - in head/sys: netinet netinet6
Message-ID:  <54B3F47E.5050206@baldwin.cx>
In-Reply-To: <CAGaYwLfamZcQN=3rcGa=Zoh_Xn2dmpEW3mpBDW_iU9G-HuukCg@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <201410100609.s9A690NU067686@svn.freebsd.org> <54AC6F4E.1000707@FreeBSD.org> <CAGaYwLezj6J8AJKFo9wbw3Z-gf8=ip418E%2BvPqr09AZ3f7hsbQ@mail.gmail.com> <6173473.uE5Sr5nj0c@ralph.baldwin.cx> <CAGaYwLfamZcQN=3rcGa=Zoh_Xn2dmpEW3mpBDW_iU9G-HuukCg@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/12/15 11:12 AM, Bryan Venteicher wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 9:51 AM, John Baldwin <john@baldwin.cx
> <mailto:john@baldwin.cx>> wrote:
>
>     On Tuesday, January 06, 2015 07:07:11 PM Bryan Venteicher wrote:
>     > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Bryan Drewery
>     <bdrewery@freebsd.org <mailto:bdrewery@freebsd.org>> wrote:
>     > > On 1/6/2015 4:00 PM, Bryan Venteicher wrote:
>     > > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:52 PM, John Nielsen
>     <lists@jnielsen.net <mailto:lists@jnielsen.net>
>     > > >
>     > > > <mailto:lists@jnielsen.net <mailto:lists@jnielsen.net>>> wrote:
>     > > >     Bryan-
>     > > >
>     > > >     On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:09 AM, Bryan Venteicher
>     <bryanv@freebsd.org <mailto:bryanv@freebsd.org>
>     > > >
>     > > >     <mailto:bryanv@freebsd.org <mailto:bryanv@freebsd.org>>>
>     wrote:
>     > > >     > Author: bryanv
>     > > >     > Date: Fri Oct 10 06:08:59 2014
>     > > >     > New Revision: 272886
>     > > >     > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/272886
>     > > >     >
>     > > >     > Log:
>     > > >     >  Add context pointer and source address to the UDP
>     tunnel callback
>     > > >     >
>     > > >     >  These are needed for the forthcoming vxlan
>     implementation. The
>     > >
>     > > context
>     > >
>     > > >     >  pointer means we do not have to use a spare pointer
>     field in the
>     > >
>     > > inpcb,
>     > >
>     > > >     >  and the source address is required to populate
>     vxlan's forwarding
>     > >
>     > > table.
>     > >
>     > > >     >  While I highly doubt there is an out of tree consumer
>     of the UDP
>     > > >     >  tunneling callback, this change may be a difficult to
>     eventually
>     > >
>     > > MFC.
>     > >
>     > > >     I noticed this comment while doing an MFC of vxlan to my
>     local tree.
>     > > >     Do you think an MFC to 10-STABLE of this change (and vxlan
>     > > >     generally) will be feasible? Is there precedent for ABI
>     changes like
>     > > >     this being sanctioned? Could symbol versioning help?
>     > > >
>     > > > I'd like to get some consensus on whether this commit is OK
>     to MFC. With
>     > > > this commit, vxlan should be an easy to MFC.
>     > >
>     > > Breaking ABI will potentially hurt packages. FreeBSD builds
>     packages for
>     > > the oldest supported release on a branch. If you break ABI in
>     10.2 while
>     > > we are building packages for 10.1 then any packages using these
>     > > interfaces may not work right or result in panics packages
>     with kmods.
>     > > Please consider that.
>     >
>     > The only user visible change of this commit would be the
>     addition of a
>     > field at the end of 'struct udpcb'. I don't think that is a
>     problem, at
>     > least a similar change didn't prevent the MFC of UDP Lite.
>     >
>     > The kernel part of this changes the UDP tunneling functions
>     which I guess
>     > there could be a 3rd party module out there, but I very highly
>     doubt that,
>     > based on how un-useful the previous interface was.
>
>     Userland should not be impacted by this at all.  (Nothing in
>     userland cares
>     about udpcb's internals.)  I think there was only ever one
>     consumer for the
>     existing UDP tunneling code (bz@ knows what it is).  I'm not sure
>     where it
>     lives.
>
>
>
> The only in tree consumer is SCTP.

I thought there was some IPSEC use-case that was the original impetus
for bz@ adding this?  Bjoern really is the person to ask about that though.

-- 
John Baldwin




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54B3F47E.5050206>