On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 12:13:14AM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Jesper Skriver wrote: > > > > On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:19:07PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > > > this patch contains three things (to be separated for committing): > ... > > > ip_fastforward > > > > > > - removes ip_flow forwarding code > > > - adds full direct process-to-completion IPv4 forwarding code > > > - handles ip fragmentation incl. hw support (ip_flow did not) > > > - supports ipfw and ipfilter (ip_flow did not) > > > - supports divert and ipfw fwd (ip_flow did not) > > > - drops anything it can't handle back to normal ip_input > > > > I have a few comments to this code, see inline, look for #jesper > > Answers also inline. [All whitespace bugs are fixed and omitted here] One comment at the bottom. > > Apart from that it looks good. > > Thanks for reviewing! > > > /Jesper > > > > > +int > > > +ip_fastforward(struct mbuf *m) > > > +{ > ... > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * Only unicast IP, not from loopback, no L2 or IP broadcast, > > > + * no multicast, no INADDR_ANY > > > + */ > > > + if ((m->m_pkthdr.rcvif->if_flags & IFF_LOOPBACK) || > > > + (ntohl(ip->ip_src.s_addr) == (u_long)INADDR_BROADCAST) || > > > > #jesper > > You will never see packets with a multicast source address. > > I hope so but we can never be sure. Here we look at what we've got > straight from the wire. Everything is possible there. I only need > to craft an apropriate packet... True, but do we really care if forwarded such a packet ? And if we want to check, we should just drop it directly instead of giving the packet to ip_input. /JesperReceived on Wed Nov 12 2003 - 14:23:47 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:28 UTC