Heads up --- Thinking about UDP and tunneling

[Max Laier]

On Thursday 11 December 2008 13:50:39 Randall Stewart wrote:
> All:
>
> Ok here is what I have come up with.. going along the
> lines of Max's suggestion.. its pretty clean I think.
>
> Comments would be most welcome..
>
> The only thing possibly a bit dodgy is that
>
> 1) UDP has no per-protocol block.
> 2) Instead of creating one, I am using the block pointer in the inp
>     as the function pointer for the tunneling.
>
> What this means if we EVERY did add a per protocol structure for
> UDP we would need to move the function pointer in there..
>
> The nice thing it does is make it so we have no structural changes to
> the code... i.e. complete compatibility... no changes to inp or
> other UDP structures :-)
>
>
> Here is the patch.. please send comments ;-D

I like it, though I have no idea what the implications of using the block 
pointer might be.

One thing about the patch:  What about the multi-/broadcast cases?  I think if 
we introduce this, we want to make sure it works there as well - no?

And finally, is there a potential race with setting the function and data 
arriving at the socket - should udp_set_kernel_tunneling maybe check that the 
socket isn't bound yet?

-- 
/"\  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