22c58991e3
Because fetching a counter is a rather expansive function we should use
counter_u64_fetch() in pf_state_expires() only when necessary. A "rdr
pass" rule should not cause more effort than separate "rdr" and "pass"
rules. For rules with adaptive timeout values the call of
counter_u64_fetch() should be accepted, but otherwise not.
From the man page:
The adaptive timeout values can be defined both globally and for
each rule. When used on a per-rule basis, the values relate to the
number of states created by the rule, otherwise to the total number
of states.
This handling of adaptive timeouts is done in pf_state_expires(). The
calculation needs three values: start, end and states.
1. Normal rules "pass .." without adaptive setting meaning "start = 0"
runs in the else-section and therefore takes "start" and "end" from
the global default settings and sets "states" to pf_status.states
(= total number of states).
2. Special rules like
"pass .. keep state (adaptive.start 500 adaptive.end 1000)"
have start != 0, run in the if-section and take "start" and "end"
from the rule and set "states" to the number of states created by
their rule using counter_u64_fetch().
Thats all ok, but there is a third case without special handling in the
above code snippet:
3. All "rdr/nat pass .." statements use together the pf_default_rule.
Therefore we have "start != 0" in this case and we run the
if-section but we better should run the else-section in this case and
do not fetch the counter of the pf_default_rule but take the total
number of states.
Submitted by: Andreas Longwitz <longwitz@incore.de>
MFC after: 2 weeks
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| if_pflog.c | ||
| if_pfsync.c | ||
| in4_cksum.c | ||
| pf_altq.h | ||
| pf_if.c | ||
| pf_ioctl.c | ||
| pf_lb.c | ||
| pf_mtag.h | ||
| pf_norm.c | ||
| pf_osfp.c | ||
| pf_ruleset.c | ||
| pf_table.c | ||
| pf.c | ||
| pf.h | ||