On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:14:51AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:13:12AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > when pf_route (and pf_route6) are supposed to handle forwarding the
> > packet (ie, for route-to or reply-to rules), they take the mbuf
> > away from the calling code pa
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:13:12AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> when pf_route (and pf_route6) are supposed to handle forwarding the
> packet (ie, for route-to or reply-to rules), they take the mbuf
> away from the calling code path. this is done by clearing the mbuf
> pointer in the pf_pdesc struct
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 11:13:12AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> when pf_route (and pf_route6) are supposed to handle forwarding the
> packet (ie, for route-to or reply-to rules), they take the mbuf
> away from the calling code path. this is done by clearing the mbuf
> pointer in the pf_pdesc struct
when pf_route (and pf_route6) are supposed to handle forwarding the
packet (ie, for route-to or reply-to rules), they take the mbuf
away from the calling code path. this is done by clearing the mbuf
pointer in the pf_pdesc struct. it doesn't do this for dup-to rules
though.
at the moment pf_route
