Re: netpfil with if_output and ip(6)_output

Hi Andrey,

> On 14 Nov 2016, at 1:55 PM, Andrey V. Elsukov <bu7cher_at_yandex.ru> wrote:
> 
> I have some thought related to your proposal.
> What you think if we will introduce new KPI to work with fwd_tags?
> With such KPI we can make fwd_tags opaque for PFIL consumers and handle
> tags identically in all *proto*_output() routines.
> 
> For first glance I can propose the following:
> 
> /* ip_var.h */
> #define	IP_HAS_NEXTHOP(m)	((m)->m_flags & M_IP_NEXTHOP)
> int ip_set_fwdtag(struct mbuf *m, struct sockaddr_in *dst,
>    u_short ifidx);
> int ip_get_fwdtag(struct mbuf *m, struct sockaddr_in *dst,
>    u_short *ifidx);
> void ip_flush_fwdtag(struct mbuf *m);
> 
> 
> /* ip6_var.h */
> #define	IP6_HAS_NEXTHOP(m)	((m)->m_flags & M_IP6_NEXTHOP)
> int ip6_set_fwdtag(struct mbuf *m, struct sockaddr_in6 *dst,
>    u_short ifidx);
> int ip6_get_fwdtag(struct mbuf *m, struct sockaddr_in6 *dst,
>    u_short *ifidx);
> void ip6_flush_fwdtag(struct mbuf *m);

This looks reasonable, thank you.  How would we proceed with the
implementation / porting of ipfw to the new framework?

> Since I'm not quite aware how PF handles PACKET_TAG_IPFORWARD tags, you
> can modify this to fully cover its needs.

Right now, it doesn't, which is the original problem: PACKET_TAG_IPFORWARD
aligns well with netpfil, now we only need pf to do the same (and
maybe the new ipfw net64 code at some point as well).

ipfw only requires the forwarding address, pf will want to select
the outgoing interface in the same step so the KPI already covers
that.

As a note, set_fwdtag will have to be able to (safely) rewrite the
internal structure, in case one filter overwrites the decision of
the other, or we call flush + set again?

Another small oddity is the flipping of M_FASTFWD_OURS which is
write only for forwarding, but overwriting with another all requires
to unset it.  Should M_FASTFWD_OURS set/unset be part of the KBI as
well?


Cheers,
Franco