atom feed40 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-archRe: CFR: m_tag patch
FromSent OnAttachments
Sam LefflerOct 6, 2002 9:38 pm 
Nate LawsonOct 6, 2002 10:01 pm 
Sam LefflerOct 6, 2002 10:21 pm 
Terry LambertOct 6, 2002 11:09 pm 
Julian ElischerOct 6, 2002 11:32 pm 
Julian ElischerOct 7, 2002 12:29 am 
Sam LefflerOct 7, 2002 9:24 am 
Sam LefflerOct 7, 2002 9:31 am 
Sam LefflerOct 7, 2002 9:46 am 
Julian ElischerOct 7, 2002 2:20 pm 
Terry LambertOct 7, 2002 3:34 pm 
Sam LefflerOct 7, 2002 3:52 pm 
Julian ElischerOct 7, 2002 4:10 pm 
Julian ElischerOct 7, 2002 4:22 pm 
Luigi RizzoOct 7, 2002 4:30 pm 
Julian ElischerOct 7, 2002 4:55 pm 
Sam LefflerOct 7, 2002 5:06 pm 
Julian ElischerOct 7, 2002 5:10 pm 
Julian ElischerOct 7, 2002 5:14 pm 
Julian ElischerOct 7, 2002 5:23 pm 
Terry LambertOct 7, 2002 5:31 pm 
Terry LambertOct 7, 2002 5:47 pm 
Nate LawsonOct 7, 2002 10:42 pm 
Don LewisOct 7, 2002 11:06 pm 
Julian ElischerOct 7, 2002 11:28 pm 
Julian ElischerOct 7, 2002 11:32 pm 
Terry LambertOct 8, 2002 12:42 am 
Terry LambertOct 8, 2002 12:53 am 
Harti BrandtOct 8, 2002 1:19 am 
Nate LawsonOct 8, 2002 11:25 am 
Don LewisOct 8, 2002 12:15 pm 
Sam LefflerOct 8, 2002 6:25 pm 
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉Oct 10, 2002 7:33 pm 
Sam LefflerOct 11, 2002 11:11 am 
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉Oct 16, 2002 3:03 am 
Luigi RizzoOct 16, 2002 7:45 am 
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉Oct 16, 2002 11:06 am 
Luigi RizzoOct 16, 2002 11:18 am 
Julian ElischerOct 16, 2002 11:24 am 
Sam LefflerOct 16, 2002 11:29 am 
Subject:Re: CFR: m_tag patch
From:Terry Lambert (tlam@mindspring.com)
Date:Oct 6, 2002 11:09:05 pm
List:org.freebsd.freebsd-arch

Sam Leffler wrote:

1. Is ordering important or is an SLIST sufficient for all cases?

Order is not important.

Hm. I don't know if this is actually correct. I think if it went LIFO, you might not be very happy. I think it depends on what it's used for.

2. Is it possible to attach the aux argument to the mbuf chain instead of adding it as a new parameter to ip_output?

The "aux argument" _was_ originally attached to the mbuf chain. The change to add an extra arg to ip*_output was done to eliminate one of the biggest uses of the aux mbuf; the socket to use to get IPsec policy. This is a performance win and worth doing independent of the aux->m_tag switch.

One could split the ip_output change out but doing it together avoids converting code that would just eventually be eliminated (unless you did the ip_output change first and then the m_tag switch).

The IPSEC for IPv4 stuff is very ugly. It's tempting to say that it has nothing to do with the IP encapsulation, proper (conceptually, it should not). The big problem is that the IPSEC allocations are are there if IPSEC is compiled into the kernel at all, even if IPSEC is not being used on a particular socket.

Actually, the integration into IPv4 strikes me as little more than an afterthought: the KAME code handles it in IPv6 without the extra overhead for the non-IPSEC sockets, and the IPv4 support is more of a bolt-on than something designed in. I'd almost want to see the IPSEC stuff treated as a separate encapsulation layer, on its own.

Adding a aparameter for it specifically adds more cruft on the cruft that's already there, and makes the IPSEC *not* an encapsulation, in any way. 8-(.

Is there another way to do this? A general extension mechanism for attributin mbufs seems to be a good idea. People have wanted this before, for credentials (e.g. Robert suggested something like this before).

-- Terry

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message