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 manually and b) is not specific to pfsync(4) alone. IFXF_MPSAFE is about the driver's start routing alone, it does not concern the ioctl(2) path. Does that answer your questions?
