Hi Darren,
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 17:01 -0700, Darren Reed wrote:
> On 10/02/08 18:14, Sebastien Roy wrote:
> > Agreed, we should have a boolean in ipst in addition to the callback
> > list itself to improve this. This is easy to fix.
> >
>
> Without wanting to be too much of a devil, now that the multi-callback
> problem is solved with pfhooks, shouldn't the infrastructure like this
> that supports ipobs perhaps be revisited? For example, the data path
> hooks for packets use a macro, FW_HOOKS(), that starts like this:
>
> if ((_hook).he_interested) { \
> ...
We'd have to first convert the hooks to be firewall hooks, which they're
currently not. We're two weeks away from putback at this point (in
final testing phase), so I'd be receptive to working toward merging the
ipobs hooks with the filtering hooks as a follow-on RFE. It certainly
sounds on the surface like a good direction to go in.
-Seb
