Review please: pfil FIRST/LAST
max at love2party.net
Mon Mar 17 12:33:29 UTC 2008
On Monday 17 March 2008 11:29:15 Vadim Goncharov wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:05:36 +0100; Max Laier wrote about 'Review
please: pfil FIRST/LAST':
> > attached is a small diff to allow pfil(9) consumers to force a
> > sticky position on the head/tail of the processing queue. This
> > can be used to do traffic conditioning kind of tasks w/o
> > disturbing the other filters. I will need this to implement
> > carp(4) ip based load balancing. While here I also removed a few
> > paragraphs in BUGS which are no longer true (since we are using
> > rmlocks for pfil(9)).
> > I'd appreciate review of the logic in pfil_list_add - just to make
> > sure I didn't botch it. Thanks.
> Could it be done a way which will allow user a simple configuration of
> filter plly ordering? E.g. to specify that order must alway be "ipfw,
> then pf".
This is a separate issue. I had patches once to specify hook order via
sysctl and will probably revisit this as I like the idea. For now,
though, this is not what I'm interested in.
/"\ Best regards, | mlaier at freebsd.org
\ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661
X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier at EFnet
/ \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
More information about the freebsd-hackers