> On 12 Jan 2015, at 15:51 , John Baldwin <j...@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 <bdrew...@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> On 1/6/2015 4:00 PM, Bryan Venteicher wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:52 PM, John Nielsen <li...@jnielsen.net >>>> >>>> <mailto:li...@jnielsen.net>> wrote: >>>> Bryan- >>>> >>>> On Oct 10, 2014, at 12:09 AM, Bryan Venteicher <bry...@freebsd.org >>>> >>>> <mailto:bry...@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.
If you are talking about u_tun_func then it came from SCTP over UDP tunneling. tuexen and rrs are your friends. I was wondering if it could be used similarly for IPsec UDPencap but I think that went nowhere back then. — Bjoern A. Zeeb Charles Haddon Spurgeon: "Friendship is one of the sweetest joys of life. Many might have failed beneath the bitterness of their trial had they not found a friend." _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
