On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 05:05:16PM +0200, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
E> > E> speaking of pf(4) side of things please do not loose the VIMAGE calls!
E> >
E> > Yeah, can you explain please why do we need them here? The pfil hooks
E> > are always run already in some defined VNET context, don't they?
E>
E> fro
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 05:05:16PM +0200, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
E> > E> speaking of pf(4) side of things please do not loose the VIMAGE calls!
E> >
E> > Yeah, can you explain please why do we need them here? The pfil hooks
E> > are always run already in some defined VNET context, don't they?
E> >
E>
E
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Ermal,
>
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:01:38PM +0200, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
> E> it would be better to switch to net byte order allover rather than
> E> trade one for the other.
> E> This makes it even more tricky to understand the code than it i
On 05.10.2012 15:47, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
Hello,
once the pfil(9) API was introduced in FreeBSD, our main packet filter,
the ipfw(4) worked in host byte order, that's why the pfil(9) API was
violated: the AF_INET hooks were entered with packet in host byte order.
Moreover, when we put
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> Ermal,
>
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:01:38PM +0200, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
> E> it would be better to switch to net byte order allover rather than
> E> trade one for the other.
> E> This makes it even more tricky to understand the code than it
Ermal,
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 03:01:38PM +0200, Ermal Lu?i wrote:
E> it would be better to switch to net byte order allover rather than
E> trade one for the other.
E> This makes it even more tricky to understand the code than it is.
E> If you do the work its better to do the full thing in one s
Hello Gleb,
it would be better to switch to net byte order allover rather than
trade one for the other.
This makes it even more tricky to understand the code than it is.
If you do the work its better to do the full thing in one shot and
switch to netbyte order.
speaking of pf(4) side of things pl
Hello,
once the pfil(9) API was introduced in FreeBSD, our main packet filter,
the ipfw(4) worked in host byte order, that's why the pfil(9) API was
violated: the AF_INET hooks were entered with packet in host byte order.
If you look into pfil(9) manpage you'll see that it still declares
op
