On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Max Laier wrote:
Please help testing. It's been confirmed to work for IPFW, let's make sure pf is in good shape, too. Thanks.
A casual glance at pf.c suggests that pf(4) doesn't suffer from the "look up the inpcb even though it's passed down if the socket pointer is NULL" bug that ipfw(4) did, but confirmation that things work properly would definitely be good.
Thanks, Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: Please test ipfw and pf uid/gid/jail rules Date: Monday 29 September 2008 From: Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dear all: Although it didn't show up in 8.x testing to date, it turned out there was a serious stability regression in the ipfw uid/gid/jail rule implementation as a result of moving to rwlocks for inpcbinfo and inpcb. I think I've corrected the sources of the problem in 8.x and 7.x now, but it would be very helpful if people who use ipfw and pf could do some extra testing of these rules with invariants and witness enabled to see if we can't shake out any remaining problems. Thanks, Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge ------------------------------------------------------- -- /"\ Best regards, | [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661 X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] / \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
_______________________________________________ freebsd-pf@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-pf To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
