On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 08:53:04PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:42:07PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> > Does `IFXF_MPSAFE' bit assume that pfsyncioctl() should not rely to
> > kernel lock and pfsync(4) related data structures already have their own
> > protection?
>
On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:42:07PM +0300, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> Does `IFXF_MPSAFE' bit assume that pfsyncioctl() should not rely to
> kernel lock and pfsync(4) related data structures already have their own
> protection?
I say it does not.
There's PF_LOCK(), but it a) has to be enabled manual
On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 02:33:01PM +0200, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> mvs's vnet(4) diff reminded me of pfsync(4).
>
> This works on my my pair of amd64 firewalls.
>
> Feedback? OK?
>
Does `IFXF_MPSAFE' bit assume that pfsyncioctl() should not rely to
kernel lock and pfsync(4) related data structure
mvs's vnet(4) diff reminded me of pfsync(4).
This works on my my pair of amd64 firewalls.
Feedback? OK?
Index: if_pfsync.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/net/if_pfsync.c,v
retrieving revision 1.275
diff -u -p -r1.275 if_pfsync.c
--- if