Differential D21086

pf: Remove partial RFC2675 support
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by kp on Jul 27 2019, 1:32 PM.

Tags

None

Referenced Files

	F136937762: D21086.id60194.diff
	Thu, Nov 20, 6:16 PM

	F136936331: D21086.id60231.diff
	Thu, Nov 20, 6:06 PM

	F136936264: D21086.id.diff
	Thu, Nov 20, 6:05 PM

	F136936262: D21086.id60218.diff
	Thu, Nov 20, 6:05 PM

	F136934664: D21086.diff
	Thu, Nov 20, 5:55 PM

	Unknown Object (File)
	Sun, Nov 16, 8:03 AM

	Unknown Object (File)
	Sun, Nov 16, 6:38 AM

	Unknown Object (File)
	Sun, Nov 16, 3:39 AM

Subscribers

Details

Reviewers

Group Reviewers

Commits

rS350414: pf: Remove partial RFC2675 support

Summary

Remove our (very partial) support for RFC2675 Jumbograms. They're not
used, not actually supported and not a good idea.

Diff Detail

Repository

rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion

Lint

Lint Not Applicable

Unit

Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

kp created this revision.Jul 27 2019, 1:32 PM

Herald added a subscriber: farrokhi. · View Herald TranscriptJul 27 2019, 1:32 PM

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B25537: Diff 60194.Jul 27 2019, 1:32 PM

kp added a reviewer: thj.Jul 27 2019, 1:32 PM

kp set the repository for this revision to rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion.

Herald added a subscriber: imp. · View Herald TranscriptJul 27 2019, 1:32 PM

thj added inline comments.Jul 28 2019, 4:49 PM

sys/netpfil/pf/pf_norm.c
1237 ↗	(On Diff #60194)	if we don't support jumbo, shouldn't we just drop any packet with the jumbo option? i.e. case IP6OPT_JUMP: goto drop and then we can remove all this handling?

Remove more bits, as suggested by thj

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B25553: Diff 60218.Jul 28 2019, 7:44 PM

kp marked an inline comment as done.Jul 28 2019, 7:45 PM

thj accepted this revision.Jul 28 2019, 8:01 PM

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Jul 28 2019, 8:01 PM

Does this mean that you concluded in the IETF mailing list to drop this support?

Closed by commit rS350414: pf: Remove partial RFC2675 support (authored by kp). · Explain WhyJul 29 2019, 1:21 PM

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.

kp added a commit: rS350414: pf: Remove partial RFC2675 support.

In D21086#457948, @ae wrote:

Does this mean that you concluded in the IETF mailing list to drop this support?

I listened in to the relevant session in the IETF meeting, and while I don't know if there was a firm conclusion even those opposing moving RFC2675 to historic status were very clear that its implementation is optional, and it's entirely okay to not support it.

Revision Contents
Changeset List

Path

Size

head/

sys/

netpfil/

pf/

4 lines

41 lines

Diff 60231

head/sys/netpfil/pf/pf.c

Loading...

head/sys/netpfil/pf/pf_norm.c

Loading...