Heads up --- Thinking about UDP and tunneling
Max Laier
max at love2party.net
Thu Dec 11 05:12:19 PST 2008
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
More information about the freebsd-net
mailing list