On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 03:23:31PM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 10:53:09AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > > Are you sure that it does not break any use case? I have seen so
> > > much strange stuff. What is the advantage?
> >
> > The current behaviour is lucky at best,
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 10:53:09AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > Are you sure that it does not break any use case? I have seen so
> > much strange stuff. What is the advantage?
>
> The current behaviour is lucky at best, and quirky at worst. Usually I
> would agree with you that breaking stuff
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 08:09:36PM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 09:57:33AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > calling if_output with a route to a local IP is confusing, and I'm not
> > sure it makes sense anyway.
> >
> > this treats a an RTF_LOCAL route like an invalid round
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 09:57:33AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> calling if_output with a route to a local IP is confusing, and I'm not
> sure it makes sense anyway.
>
> this treats a an RTF_LOCAL route like an invalid round and drops the
> packet.
>
> ok?
Are you sure that it does not break any
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 09:57:33AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> calling if_output with a route to a local IP is confusing, and I'm not
> sure it makes sense anyway.
>
> this treats a an RTF_LOCAL route like an invalid round and drops the
> packet.
>
> ok?
Isn't this a change of behaviour? I
calling if_output with a route to a local IP is confusing, and I'm not
sure it makes sense anyway.
this treats a an RTF_LOCAL route like an invalid round and drops the
packet.
ok?
Index: pf.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/net/pf.c,v
