- User Since
- Jul 16 2019, 2:36 PM (31 w, 6 d)
Here, I use inet_pton and inet_ntop. I didn't know this was possible in the kernel, so that's why the first revision lacked this.
Sat, Feb 22
Remove testing printfs.
Wed, Feb 19
I decided to use the existing function nat64_extract_ip4() to extract the IPv4 and removed my nat64_get_ip4().
Tue, Feb 18
Here, I also compare the destination addresses. Is this what you want?
Mon, Feb 17
Looks good to me.
I'll give up on this.
You make a good point.
Sun, Feb 16
Here, I switch to using socket options.
Thu, Feb 13
Here, I made changes to the:
I added the explanation in the man page.
Here, I switch to the range separated by a - (e.g. 2000-2999 instead of 2000 3000), where the upper number is also included. On lines 611 and 668 in alias_db.c I added a " + 1" in order to account for the new range allocation mechanism.
Wed, Feb 12
Tue, Feb 11
Thanks for your feedback.
Mon, Feb 10
Sure, done that.
Sun, Feb 9
Using long for the port parsing sounds good. Port numbers obviously can't be negative, neither than overflowed ints.
Good catch. Fixed it.
(Hopefully) fixed the interval and port parsing.
Here's my updated patch.
I'm going to revert to the code to the one without the struct nat_port_range since it caused more problems than it's worth, especially with #include statements.
Sat, Feb 8
Made the change.
I made the requested changes.
In the test, incoming connections are now based on their port, each NAT host gets their own port range.
Sorry for the late response, but yes, it is to fully enable the functionality.
Fri, Feb 7
I added an TCP test.
Thu, Feb 6
What still needs to be done with one test (port range) is a TCP client/server. It may or may not pass.
I have added a test.
Tue, Feb 4
Thanks for clarifying. I'm still new to FreeBSD TCP/IP stack development.
Mon, Feb 3
Sure, done so.
Sure, removed the comment
Sun, Feb 2
Sat, Feb 1
Jan 25 2020
Jan 23 2020
After this is committed, I plan to write tests based upon D23316.
Jan 22 2020
Nevermind, I think I'll skip the tests if this can be committed anyways.
Jan 21 2020
Jan 9 2020
Dec 26 2019
Dec 24 2019
Dec 23 2019
Dec 20 2019
Fix the ipfw man page typo.
Dec 19 2019
Dec 18 2019
@dougm I uploaded your patch to GNOME GitLab here: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libgtop/merge_requests/13
I'll offer your patch to GNOME's GitLab, but will give you credit as well.
Sounds good, lets go with your patch then.
Dec 17 2019
@dougm Your patch surely does look cleaner than mine (I just needed something to unbreak the build), but are you sure it will work on 12.x and 11.x? If so, lets go with yours.
I integrated your changes. Would the updated Ports/GNOME changes work?
I sent an updated patch to the GNOME people here: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/libgtop/merge_requests/12
@dougm Thanks for letting me know. I am working on an updated libgtop patch and will post it here (and at GNOME).
Dec 8 2019
Fixed the comment. Sorry about that.
Dec 4 2019
Here are the comments. Sorry if they aren't perfect.
Dec 3 2019
Nov 18 2019
I was just grepping through the source tree for TODO occurrences and make patches from them.
Nov 17 2019
Completely makes sense. New diff incorporates your recommended changes.
Nov 15 2019
Nov 11 2019
Oct 19 2019
Fixed the issue with full context and paths.