kern/188543: [ipfw] ipfw option `in` is not working on FreeBSD10

[bycn82]

Hi
According to the `loop` in the chk() function, everytime it was invoked,  
the arg will be checked against `the chain`, so I assumed that the same is  
always the same,
I saw that, `the chain` is always `V_layer3_chain`, but I did not find any  
V_layer2_chain !!!
So I assumed that currently it always using the same`chain`.
If so , is it better to separate the rules into multiple `chain`? for  
saying , chain1 chain2 chain3 chain4, and differnet `check point`s are  
going to use its own chain accordingly ?

Respect your effort, and I want to say `thanks` here, Thanks!

Best Regards,
Bill Yuan

On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 23:23:03 +0800, bycn82 <bycn82 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Cool!
> I just finished the overview of the source code,and finally understood  
> the `for loop` in the ip_fw2.c roughly,
> beside of the coding style,sorry for my ironic words, I want to ask  
> whether my understanding is correct.
>
> you wrap the packet/frame in the `check frame` or `check packet` which  
> where invoked in the hook() function, and pass it into the chk() function
> and the chk() function will check the `args` against the whole rule  
> set.( the `chain` variable)
>
> so my question is , does it mean that all the packet need to be checked  
> against all the firewall rule, sorry I did not have time to  
> check/understand how we generate the `chain` yet, If it is really  
> working in this case, I cannot accept that personally!
>
> according to the man page, we have 4 `check point`, I assumed that we  
> have registered the hook() into 4 different places, for saying , if I  
> have 10K lines of rules which are for 4st `check point` only, based on  
> current logic, each packet/frame need to check against the rules for 4  
> times, and actually in the 1 2 3rd `check-point` ,the verification are  
> not needed.  I hope i was wrong,
>
> Can someone kindly explain the correct logic ? thanks very much!
>
>
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 22:20:00 +0800, <ae at freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>> Synopsis: [ipfw] ipfw option `in` is not working on FreeBSD10
>>
>> Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-ipfw->ae
>> Responsible-Changed-By: ae
>> Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Apr 16 14:19:42 UTC 2014
>> Responsible-Changed-Why:
>> Take it.
>>
>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=188543
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-ipfw at freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ipfw-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"