svn commit: r272515 - projects/ipfw/sys/netpfil/ipfw

[Alexander V. Chernikov]

On 10 Oct 2014, at 01:11, John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On Thursday, October 09, 2014 12:17:50 pm Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
>> On 06.10.2014 19:45, John Baldwin wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 04, 2014 12:10:33 PM Alexander V. Chernikov wrote:
>>>> Author: melifaro
>>>> Date: Sat Oct  4 12:10:32 2014
>>>> New Revision: 272515
>>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/272515
>>>> 
>>>> Log:
>>>>   Add "ipfw_ctl3" FEATURE to indicate presence of new ipfw interface.
>>>> 
>>>> Modified:
>>>>   projects/ipfw/sys/netpfil/ipfw/ip_fw2.c
>>>> 
>>>> Modified: projects/ipfw/sys/netpfil/ipfw/ip_fw2.c
>>>> ============================================================================
>>>> == --- projects/ipfw/sys/netpfil/ipfw/ip_fw2.c	Sat Oct  4 11:40:35
>>>> 2014	(r272514) +++ projects/ipfw/sys/netpfil/ipfw/ip_fw2.c	Sat Oct  4
>>>> 12:10:32 2014	(r272515) @@ -2874,6 +2874,7 @@ static moduledata_t ipfwmod =
>>>> {
>>>>  #define	IPFW_VNET_ORDER		(IPFW_MODEVENT_ORDER + 2) /* Later still. */
>>>> 
>>>>  DECLARE_MODULE(ipfw, ipfwmod, IPFW_SI_SUB_FIREWALL, IPFW_MODEVENT_ORDER);
>>>> +FEATURE(ipfw_ctl3, "ipfw new sockopt calls");
>>>>  MODULE_VERSION(ipfw, 2);
>>>>  /* should declare some dependencies here */
>>> Would it be better to bump the module version to 3 instead?  Userland programs
>>> can then use modfind() and modstat() to determine the version.
>> I've bumped ipfw module version in r272828. Actually, I've entirely 
>> forgotten about this possibility.
>> However, it is a bit hard to determine module version inside 
>> (perl|python|sh|any) script.
>> On the other case, FEATURE framework provides nice and easy way to 
>> determine any "feature" status
>> both in C and interpreted programs.
> 
> I'll grant you that feature is convenient.  Perhaps create a SYSCTL node though that
> holds the current version?  That is 'foo.ipfw.version' being 2 or 3 is more future
> proof than 'feature.ipfw2/3/4’.
No, this is not about new _ipfw_ version. I’m unsure if all these changes are large enough to name ipfw
as “ipfw3”. This is just an indication that all ipfw-related sockopts are available via single setsockopt called
IP_FW3. Maybe naming is not the best - I’m open to any suggestion. 

However, I’m not sure why should I invent additional sysctls instead of using standard interface.

> 
> Alternatively, we could change the module code to export a dynamic sysctl tree
> for all loaded modules that includes the versions, i.e. 'module.<foo>.version', etc.
> 
> -- 
> John Baldwin
>