[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       pfsense-dev
Subject:    Re: [pfS-Dev] new patch to freebsd code - pfsense-tools, how?
From:       PiBa <pba_2k3 () yahoo ! com>
Date:       2015-05-09 19:16:00
Message-ID: 554E5CF0.8030504 () yahoo ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]


Hi Ermal,

In what regard do you expect it will not perform / affect the whole system?
For rules that do not configure a divert port only one 'if' statement is 
added another is changed that both evaluate to false.
In the case that divert-reply is configured then all packets only need 
to be evaluated by pf and not also by ipfw.. This might actually improve 
overall speed instead of decrease it.? (admit i have not done any speed 
tests..)

In any case it should simplify the required rules that are needed to 
catch reply traffic from a nonlocal ip without requiring ipfw..
And would be a good step towards avoiding some of the problems caused by 
that pf+ipfw combination.. https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=93365.0

Regards
PiBa

Ermal Luçi schreef op 7-5-2015 om 10:13:
> Hello Piba,
>
> the problem is that with your patch the whole system is impacted.
> The divert sockets do not deliver the performance you expect in this 
> regard.
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:08 PM, PiBa <pba_2k3@yahoo.com 
> <mailto:pba_2k3@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>     So something like this ( https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/3943 )
>     should be oké ?
>     The patch is attached here:
>     https://bz-attachments.freebsd.org/attachment.cgi?id=141647
>
>     If it could be applied, or commented on for needed
>     changes/improvements that would be appreciated.
>
>     Chris Buechler schreef op 5-5-2015 om 23:33:
>
>         On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:30 PM, PiBa <pba_2k3@yahoo.com
>         <mailto:pba_2k3@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>             Hi dev's,
>
>             What is the proper way to get a patch applied to FreeBSD
>             code? And get it
>             commited to pfsense-tools?
>
>         You can open a bug ticket at redmine.pfsense.org
>         <http://redmine.pfsense.org> describing the
>         issue/reason for the patch and attach it.
>         _______________________________________________
>         Dev mailing list
>         Dev@lists.pfsense.org <mailto:Dev@lists.pfsense.org>
>         https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Dev mailing list
>     Dev@lists.pfsense.org <mailto:Dev@lists.pfsense.org>
>     https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Ermal
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> Dev@lists.pfsense.org
> https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/dev


[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hi Ermal,<br>
      <br>
      In what regard do you expect it will not perform / affect the
      whole system?<br>
      For rules that do not configure a divert port only one 'if'
      statement is added another is changed that both evaluate to false.<br>
      In the case that divert-reply is configured then all packets only
      need to be evaluated by pf and not also by ipfw.. This might
      actually improve overall speed instead of decrease it.? (admit i
      have not done any speed tests..)<br>
      <br>
      In any case it should simplify the required rules that are needed
      to catch reply traffic from a nonlocal ip without requiring ipfw..<br>
      And would be a good step towards avoiding some of the problems
      caused by that pf+ipfw combination..
      <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" \
href="https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=93365.0">https://forum.pfsense.org/index.php?topic=93365.0</a><br>
  <br>
      Regards<br>
      PiBa<br>
      <br>
      Ermal Luçi schreef op 7-5-2015 om 10:13:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CAPBZQG2CQKhShCnFdYu296vitv-m7b0T5AJn=fsrM_bY5Y6H0g@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">
      <div dir="ltr">Hello Piba,
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>the problem is that with your patch the whole system is
          impacted.</div>
        <div>The divert sockets do not deliver the performance you
          expect in this regard.</div>
      </div>
      <div class="gmail_extra"><br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:08 PM, PiBa <span
            dir="ltr">&lt;<a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="mailto:pba_2k3@yahoo.com" \
target="_blank">pba_2k3@yahoo.com</a>&gt;</span>  wrote:<br>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
            .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">So
            something like this ( <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/3943">https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/3943</a>
  ) should be oké ?<br>
            The patch is attached here: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="https://bz-attachments.freebsd.org/attachment.cgi?id=141647">https://bz-attachments.freebsd.org/attachment.cgi?id=141647</a><br>
  <br>
            If it could be applied, or commented on for needed
            changes/improvements that would be appreciated.<br>
            <br>
            Chris Buechler schreef op 5-5-2015 om 23:33:<br>
            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
              .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
              On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:30 PM, PiBa &lt;<a
                moz-do-not-send="true" \
href="mailto:pba_2k3@yahoo.com">pba_2k3@yahoo.com</a>&gt;  wrote:<br>
              <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
                .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
                Hi dev's,<br>
                <br>
                What is the proper way to get a patch applied to FreeBSD
                code? And get it<br>
                commited to pfsense-tools?<br>
              </blockquote>
              You can open a bug ticket at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="http://redmine.pfsense.org">redmine.pfsense.org</a>
              describing the<br>
              issue/reason for the patch and attach it.<br>
              _______________________________________________<br>
              Dev mailing list<br>
              <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="mailto:Dev@lists.pfsense.org">Dev@lists.pfsense.org</a><br>
              <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/dev">https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/dev</a><br>
  <br>
            </blockquote>
            <br>
            _______________________________________________<br>
            Dev mailing list<br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="mailto:Dev@lists.pfsense.org">Dev@lists.pfsense.org</a><br>
            <a moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/dev">https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/dev</a><br>
  </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br>
        <br clear="all">
        <div><br>
        </div>
        -- <br>
        <div class="gmail_signature">Ermal</div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <br>
      <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" \
href="mailto:Dev@lists.pfsense.org">Dev@lists.pfsense.org</a> <a \
class="moz-txt-link-freetext" \
href="https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/dev">https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/dev</a>
 </pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>



_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
Dev@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/dev


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

Configure | About | News | Add a list | Sponsored by KoreLogic