Hello,
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:39:30AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 04:19:11PM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 06:07:59PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > > --- sys/conf/GENERIC 30 Sep 2020 14:51:17 -0000 1.273
> > > +++ sys/conf/GENERIC 22 Jan 2021 07:33:30 -0000
> > > @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ pseudo-device msts 1 # MSTS line discipl
> > > pseudo-device endrun 1 # EndRun line discipline
> > > pseudo-device vnd 4 # vnode disk devices
> > > pseudo-device ksyms 1 # kernel symbols device
> > > +pseudo-device kstat
> > > #pseudo-device dt # Dynamic Tracer
> > >
> > > # clonable devices
> >
> > This is an unrelated chunk.
>
> oh yeah...
>
> > > +pf_route(struct pf_pdesc *pd, struct pf_state *s)
> > ...
> > > + if (pd->dir == PF_IN) {
> > > if (pf_test(AF_INET, PF_OUT, ifp, &m0) != PF_PASS)
> >
> > Yes, this is the correct logic. When the packet comes in, pf
> > overrides forwarding, tests the out rules, and sends it. For
> > outgoing packets on out route-to rules we have already tested the
> > rules. It also works for reply-to the other way around.
>
> yep.
I'm suggesting to keep current if () in. and change it with follow
up commit, which will adjust match rule for route-to/reply-to.
would it be OK with you, David?
>
> > But what about dup-to? The packet is duplicated for both directions.
> > I guess the main use case for dup-to is implementing a monitor port.
> > There you have to pass packets stateless, otherwise it would not
> > work anyway. The strange semantics is not related to this diff.
>
> are you saying i should skip pf_test for all dup-to generated packets?
this makes perfect sense for me.
>
> > We are reaching a state where this diff can go in. I just startet
> > a regress run with it. OK bluhm@
>
> hopefully i fixed the pfctl error messages up so the regress tests arent
> too unhappy.
thanks and
regards
sashan
