Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
mån 2008-04-07 klockan 23:11 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
We have come up with a 'final-beta' patch for squid-3 now.
http://treenet.co.nz/projects/squid/patches/tproxy-squid-3_20080407.patch
Just waiting on Laszlo final approval.
Some comments...
There should be a general TPROXY define, shared by all, or the common
os-independent code should always be enabled. I do not want to see #if
LINUX_TPROXY2 || LINUX_TPROXY4 defines in the general code. Such ifs
should only be seen in the lowlevel implementation. And from a code
maintenance perspective it's best is the common code is always built,
just as is done for the transparent interception code. The drawback is
that it costs one or two cpu cycles more per requests even if the
feature is not available on the platform but it's much much less likely
the feature gets broken by other changes.
+ /* AYJ: do we actually need to set this again on every accept? */
+ if(fd_table[fd].flags.transparent == 1) {
+ comm_set_transparent(sock);
+ F->flags.transparent = 1;
+ }
You need to at least set the internal flag. But you most likely do no
need to make the comm call telling the kernel it's a transparent
connection (it already knows..)
Is this indended?
Yes. It was a mistake on my part during the IPv6 conversion. I somehow
thought the comm_openex flags were equivalent to the sock flags. I know
now they only mean the same things, but the actual values are
squid-specific. And the field was not used anyway.
@@ -652,7 +673,6 @@
addr.GetAddrInfo(AI);
AI->ai_socktype = sock_type;
AI->ai_protocol = proto;
- AI->ai_flags = flags;
debugs(50, 3, "comm_openex: Attempt open socket for: " << addr );
Regards
Henrik
--
Please use Squid 2.6.STABLE19 or 3.0.STABLE4
