On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 01:47:35PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: A> > Implementationwise, the kernel side is evidently trivial as the A> > original code already supports the idea of multiple chains. All A> > you need is to extend the struct ifnet with a pointer to the chain, A> > or use some other trick (e.g. going through ifindex) to quickly A> > associate a chain to the input (and possibly output) interface. A> A> Nonononononononononononononononononononononono. A> A> There MUST NOT be any firewall specific pointers or other information A> in struct ifnet or any other non-firewall private part of the kernel. A> Otherwise the entire independence we've gained with the nice and clean A> PFIL_HOOKS API goes down the drain. This MUST NOT happen again. A> A> The whole idea of the PFIL_HOOKS is to have independend and loadable A> firewall modules with different approaches, internal designs and so A> on.
The whole idea of PFIL_HOOKS is to have independend and loadable firewall modules, which can be attached to different parts of kernel! There is no such requirement that, pfil hooks MUST be sticked to a single entry point in ip_input() and ip_output(). Pfils attached to interface belong to interface, and thus should be stored in struct ifnet. This is the way it is done in per-interface filters. A> For example a way Gleb can get his way without any bickering from us A> is by creating his own gleb-firewall module using the PFIL_HOOKS API A> and put it into the ports tree for easy access, provided he doesn't A> modify the PFIL_HOOKS API (which he doesn't have to). I am not going to create a new firewall or change PFIL_HOOKS. I'm going to attach *the existing* pfil_hooks to a different place, to perform filtering with *existing* firewalls. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
