On 4/16/14, 11:40 PM, bycn82 wrote:
Hi
According to the `loop` in the chk() function, everytime it was
invoked, the arg will be checked against `the chain`, so I assumed
that the same is always the same,
I saw that, `the chain` is always `V_layer3_chain`, but I did not
find any V_layer2_chain !!!
So I assumed that currently it always using the same`chain`.
If so , is it better to separate the rules into multiple `chain`?
for saying , chain1 chain2 chain3 chain4, and differnet `check
point`s are going to use its own chain accordingly ?
you can do that with 1 chain, by using the 'skipto' command to make
packets from different entry-points skipto different rule numbers.
Respect your effort, and I want to say `thanks` here, Thanks!
Best Regards,
Bill Yuan
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 23:23:03 +0800, bycn82 byc...@gmail.com wrote:
Cool!
I just finished the overview of the source code,and finally
understood the `for loop` in the ip_fw2.c roughly,
beside of the coding style,sorry for my ironic words, I want to ask
whether my understanding is correct.
you wrap the packet/frame in the `check frame` or `check packet`
which where invoked in the hook() function, and pass it into the
chk() function
and the chk() function will check the `args` against the whole rule
set.( the `chain` variable)
so my question is , does it mean that all the packet need to be
checked against all the firewall rule, sorry I did not have time to
check/understand how we generate the `chain` yet, If it is really
working in this case, I cannot accept that personally!
according to the man page, we have 4 `check point`, I assumed that
we have registered the hook() into 4 different places, for saying ,
if I have 10K lines of rules which are for 4st `check point` only,
based on current logic, each packet/frame need to check against the
rules for 4 times, and actually in the 1 2 3rd `check-point` ,the
verification are not needed. I hope i was wrong,
Can someone kindly explain the correct logic ? thanks very much!
On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 22:20:00 +0800, a...@freebsd.org wrote:
Synopsis: [ipfw] ipfw option `in` is not working on FreeBSD10
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-ipfw-ae
Responsible-Changed-By: ae
Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Apr 16 14:19:42 UTC 2014
Responsible-Changed-Why:
Take it.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=188543
___
freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
freebsd-ipfw-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
___
freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ipfw-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
___
freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ipfw-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
