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? > 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? >
Yes, thanks, `IFXF_MPSAFE' has this commentary. I have no objections. OK mvs@.
