Re: interface hooks to pf(4) should be using PF_LOCK()/PF_UNLOCK()

On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 07:12:31PM +0100, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote: > Hello, > > diff below is the first step to make pfioctl() _without_ NET_LOCK(). > Currently pf_if.c seems to be the only blocker which prevents us > from removing all NET_LOCK()/NET_UNLOCK() calls we have in pf(4). > > diff be

Re: interface hooks to pf(4) should be using PF_LOCK()/PF_UNLOCK()

> On 22 Nov 2022, at 18:49, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote: > > Hello, > > this change is required to unhook pf(4) from NET_LOCK(). > therefore I'd like to get it in. ok dlg@ > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 04:51:59AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote: >> >> >>> On 7 Nov 2022, at 4:12 am, Alexandr Nedved

Re: interface hooks to pf(4) should be using PF_LOCK()/PF_UNLOCK()

Hello, this change is required to unhook pf(4) from NET_LOCK(). therefore I'd like to get it in. On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 04:51:59AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote: > > > > On 7 Nov 2022, at 4:12 am, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > diff below is the first step to make pfioctl()

interface hooks to pf(4) should be using PF_LOCK()/PF_UNLOCK()

Hello, diff below is the first step to make pfioctl() _without_ NET_LOCK(). Currently pf_if.c seems to be the only blocker which prevents us from removing all NET_LOCK()/NET_UNLOCK() calls we have in pf(4). diff below passed very basic smoke test. OK to commit? thanks and regards sashan --