From: Alexandr Nedvedicky <sashan@fastmail.net>
Subject: Re: UDP PCB table split IPv4 and IPv6
To: Alexander Bluhm <alexander.bluhm@gmx.net>
Cc: tech@openbsd.org
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 01:30:05 +0100

Hello,

On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 09:59:21AM +0100, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Currently we have one UDP table for both IPv4 and IPv6 PCB.
> I would like to split it like Raw IP and divert tables.
> 
> Then we have less contention on the table mutex when IPv4 and IPv6
> are used simultaneously.  Also individual hash tables get smaller
> and looping over all PCBs gets shorter.
> 
> ok?

    change makes sense, I have no objection. I have one comment/question:

</snip>
> @@ -847,10 +866,10 @@ udp6_ctlinput(int cmd, struct sockaddr *
>  			 */
>  		}
>  
> -		in6_pcbnotify(&udbtable, &sa6, uh.uh_dport,
> +		in6_pcbnotify(&udb6table, &sa6, uh.uh_dport,
>  		    &sa6_src, uh.uh_sport, rdomain, cmd, cmdarg, notify);
>  	} else {
> -		in6_pcbnotify(&udbtable, &sa6, 0,
> +		in6_pcbnotify(&udb6table, &sa6, 0,
>  		    &sa6_any, 0, rdomain, cmd, cmdarg, notify);
>  	}
>  }

    hunk above belongs to function udp6_ctlinput(). Are you sure
    &udb6table address is correct in else branch? If I understand
    things right the else branch matches condition !ip6, so
    I would expect &udbtable here.

otherwise it looks good.

thanks and
regards
sashan