[TEST/REVIEW #2] ng_ipfw: node to glue together ipfw(4) and netgraph(4)

[Gleb Smirnoff]

On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:09:53AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
A> Style-wise there is only the space after "(void )..." in ip_fw_pfil.c
A> for the ng_tee case which is too much.

Ok.

A> I don't like the arbitrary back-passing of errors from ng_ipfw.  I'm
A> fine with EACCES, ENOMEM and ESRCH (if hook not connected) but nothing
A> else.  Getting back any other error is very confusing and non-intuitive
A> when looking at the error of an application having packets sunk there.

So you want "return (0)" at end of ng_ipfw_input()? My vote is against.
Julian, Brooks?

A> Why don't you prepend the m_tag within ip_fw2.c as altq and divert are
A> doing it?  Dummynet should do the same to get it consistent again.

Not sure that this is good. These tags are foreign to ipfw, they belong
to other facilities.

A> Just to confirm it, NG_SEND_DATA_ONLY() queues the packet unconditionally
A> to unwind the stack?

No. The stack will be unwinded when packet travels thru netgraph and returned
back to ng_ipfw node. A new ISR will start with ng_ipfw_rcvdata(). This mode
is configured in ng_ipfw_connect().

-- 
Totus tuus, Glebius.
GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE