On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:13:42 +0200 Kristof Provost <kris...@sigsegv.be> wrote:
> On 20 Apr 2017, at 12:42, Marko Zec wrote: > > The real culprit lies somewhere in PF code which operates on a wrong > > vnet. Without a backtrace it's difficult to guess, but a quick read > > reveals that > > > > pfi_initialize() > > > > is called from the default vnet context, and subsequently registers > > interface eventhandlers so that all interface attach, change and > > detach > > events will be always executed in the default vnet, regardless of > > the real vnet where the interfaces bound to the events actually > > reside. In > > other words, > > > > pfi_attach_group_event() > > pfi_change_group_event() > > pfi_detach_group_event() > > > > will operate fine only in the default vnet, but will wreak havoc > > otherwise. Hence, those handlers should be fixed first. > > > I don’t think that’s right. > > The event handler doesn’t carry vnet information. It’s just called > in whatever vnet is active when it’s invoked. > There's no CURVNET_SET() in the EVENTHANDLER_INVOKE() macro. > > That means that we end up in pf_attach_group_event() with CURVNET set > to the relevant vnet, not to the default vnet. Right. But pfi_attach_group_event() and the other handlers cited above _do_ in fact invoke CURVNET_SET(vnet0) on entry, overriding the proper vnet choice from the caller. Therefore the proper fix should be as simple as removing CURVNET_SET() / CURVNET_RESTORE() macro pairs from the cited handlers. Marko > > There are certainly still issues with pf and vnets, but I don't think > this is > one. > > Regards, > Kristof _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
