Hi Frank,
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 9:23 AM Frank Behrens wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.04.2021 um 17:00 schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld:
> > Does this actually fix or change anything? Don't new sockets have
> > fib==0 right out of the gate already?
>
> New sockets inherit the fib from the current process. If you
Am 17.04.2021 um 17:00 schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld:
Does this actually fix or change anything? Don't new sockets have
fib==0 right out of the gate already?
New sockets inherit the fib from the current process. If you create
the wg interface from a process with different fib, that fib will
Hi Frank,
On 4/17/21, Frank Behrens wrote:
> Hi Jason!
>
> Am 13.04.2021 um 04:57 schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld:
>> Can you let me know if this fixes the issue?
>>
>> https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-freebsd/commit/?id=cdb18ebf44a5babb57cddccd6b33e9f19cfdf365
>
> It looks better, but a little too
Hi Jason!
Am 13.04.2021 um 04:57 schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld:
Can you let me know if this fixes the issue?
https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-freebsd/commit/?id=cdb18ebf44a5babb57cddccd6b33e9f19cfdf365
It looks better, but a little too much optimized. ;-)
The fix is in
Hi Frank,
Can you let me know if this fixes the issue?
https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-freebsd/commit/?id=cdb18ebf44a5babb57cddccd6b33e9f19cfdf365
Jason
Hello Jason!
Am 31.03.2021 um 21:11 schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld:
Thanks for the patch. Does the line `so4->so_fibnum = so6->so_fibnum =
sc->sc_socket.so_fibnum;` also need to be changed too in initiation,
or is that one fine?
Thanks for the pointer. That part has to be changed as well. I
Hello Jason!
Am 31.03.2021 um 21:11 schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld:
Hi Frank,
Thanks for the patch. Does the line `so4->so_fibnum = so6->so_fibnum =
sc->sc_socket.so_fibnum;` also need to be changed too in initiation,
or is that one fine?
Good catch! I'll check this in the next few days (and
Hi Frank,
Thanks for the patch. Does the line `so4->so_fibnum = so6->so_fibnum =
sc->sc_socket.so_fibnum;` also need to be changed too in initiation,
or is that one fine?
Jason
Hello!
Am 23.03.2021 um 06:51 schrieb Frank Behrens:
Am 22.03.2021 um 19:14 schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld:
Applied to git with some small modifications:
https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-freebsd/commit/?id=0a5c6abdfaa1f4f09269a222c1720e2ff3b8aa02
Thanky you! That looks very good.
I'm sorry,
Hi Jason!
Am 22.03.2021 um 19:14 schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld:
Applied to git with some small modifications:
https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-freebsd/commit/?id=0a5c6abdfaa1f4f09269a222c1720e2ff3b8aa02
Thanky you! That looks very good.
--
Frank Behrens
Osterwieck, Germany
Hi Frank,
On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 11:15 AM Frank Behrens wrote:
>
> Hi Jason,
>
> thanks for your response.
>
> Am 19.03.2021 schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld:
> > In other words, you have push access to all branches beginning with fb/ .
> That works, thanks. Meanwhile I pushed my branch to fb/fib.
>
Hi Frank,
> On 20. Mar 2021, at 6:05 PM, Frank Behrens wrote:
>
> 3. The setting of special marks, useable in packet filter/firewall
> processing. I guess, that is the meaning for "wg.. fwmark". I'm not
> sure, how best to implement that for FreeBSD. For ipfw(4) there is some
> functionality
Hi Jason,
thanks for your response.
Am 19.03.2021 schrieb Jason A. Donenfeld:
In other words, you have push access to all branches beginning with fb/ .
That works, thanks. Meanwhile I pushed my branch to fb/fib.
Right now we have the `wg set wg0 fwmark ...` mapped to
SO_USER_COOKIE, as I'm
Hey Frank,
Thanks for the patch. That looks terrific. One question, though:
Right now we have the `wg set wg0 fwmark ...` mapped to
SO_USER_COOKIE, as I'm sure you saw there. But maybe FIB would be a
better thing to use for that? We could adjust wireguard-go to do the
same with the tuntap ioctl.
Hi again,
As well, you can now do:
git push g...@git.zx2c4.com:wireguard-freebsd master:fb/whatever-you-want
In other words, you have push access to all branches beginning with fb/ .
Poke me on IRC (I'm zx2c4) there if you want to chat about dev.
Jason
15 matches
Mail list logo
