Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 12:46:36AM -0400, abe wrote:
> ...
> > Unfortunately, feedback sent while in good intentions did not
> > help. However, in further tinkering with this issue I believe I've
> > come to a conclusion. I run a rather high-traffic server so I had
> > i
abe wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 09:50:13PM -0700, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 12:46:36AM -0400, abe wrote:
> > static u_int32_t dyn_buckets = 256; /* must be power of 2 */
>
> Well another issue solved, need thicker glasses it appears. Thanks much
> Bill. Funny thing i
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 12:46:36AM -0400, abe wrote:
...
> Unfortunately, feedback sent while in good intentions did not help. However, in
>further
> tinkering with this issue I believe I've come to a conclusion. I run a rather
>high-traffic
> server so I had initially increased net.inet.i
abe wrote:
> > > > gdb -k kernel.debug
> > > > list *add_dyn_rule+0x172
> > >
> > > (kgdb) list *add_dyn_rule+0x172
> > > No source file for address 0xc021e5d6
> > > (kgdb)
> >
> > Not to be emphatic, or anything, but IPFW has to be static.
>
> I thought it was "static" considering I
Bill Fumerola wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:10:52PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Not to be emphatic, or anything, but IPFW has to be static. There
> > is voodoo you can use to make it know about loaded modules, but I'll
> > be damned if I know what it is (again, I refer you to the handbo
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 09:50:13PM -0700, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 12:46:36AM -0400, abe wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, feedback sent while in good intentions did not help. However,
>in further
> > tinkering with this issue I believe I've come to a conclusion. I run a ra
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 12:46:36AM -0400, abe wrote:
> Unfortunately, feedback sent while in good intentions did not help. However, in
>further
> tinkering with this issue I believe I've come to a conclusion. I run a rather
>high-traffic
> server so I had initially increased net.inet.ip.f
Hello folks,
Recently I have been corresponding with several from this list and questions@ with
regard to an odd issue with ipfw and my machine panicing after any network
communication
was attempted after loading some IPFW rules.
Some evidence of the panics can be found at:
http://di
Bill,
Any hint as to what seems to be going on here and maybe a clue
to a possible solution?
Regards,
Abe
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 08:02:07PM -0700, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:10:52PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > Not to be emphatic, or anything, but IPFW has
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:10:52PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Not to be emphatic, or anything, but IPFW has to be static. There
> is voodoo you can use to make it know about loaded modules, but I'll
> be damned if I know what it is (again, I refer you to the handbook).
> 8-).
nope. ipfw does
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:10:52PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> abe wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 03:50:47PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > You should be able to find out the C code at assembly code offset
> > > 0x172, assuming you created your kernel with "config -g", and you
>
abe wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 03:50:47PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > You should be able to find out the C code at assembly code offset
> > 0x172, assuming you created your kernel with "config -g", and you
***
> > compiled
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 03:50:47PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> abe wrote:
> > > You have a traceback; do you have a system dump?
> >
> > Sorry Terry, unfortunately it wouldn't produce a system dump unless
> > I was not taking the proper steps to produce one. Any URL that would
> > point this o
abe wrote:
> > You have a traceback; do you have a system dump?
>
> Sorry Terry, unfortunately it wouldn't produce a system dump unless
> I was not taking the proper steps to produce one. Any URL that would
> point this out to me or any suggestion?
Poul changed this code. I haven't been able t
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 03:18:58PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> abe wrote:
> > This started out as a sudden panic on a machine that was in a
> > datacenter for more than 8 months without issue. Then I installed
> > on fresh machines, compiled in ipfw support, and also tried this as
> > a mod
abe wrote:
> This started out as a sudden panic on a machine that was in a
> datacenter for more than 8 months without issue. Then I installed
> on fresh machines, compiled in ipfw support, and also tried this as
> a module. The result is the same regardless.
You have a traceback; do you ha
Hi Terry,
This started out as a sudden panic on a machine that was in a datacenter
for more than 8 months without issue. Then I installed on fresh machines,
compiled in ipfw support, and also tried this as a module. The result is the same
regardless.
Regards,
Abe
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002
Hi Luigi,
Pardon, been a hectic week. Heh. I've tried this on fresh installs of
4.5-rel, 4.5-rel-p20, 4.6.2-p2, and 4.7-RC.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 02:39:48PM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> what freebsd version are you using, are you using compiled-in ipfw or
> a module ?
>
> cheers
>
abe wrote:
> I've written to the questions list recently with regard to a
> panic that keeps occuring and perhaps my message was not formatted
> as well as it could have been. In more testing it seems that the
> minute the ipfw rules are loaded (which previously worked without
> issue), the
Hi,
I've written to the questions list recently with regard to a panic that keeps
occuring
and perhaps my message was not formatted as well as it could have been. In more
testing
it seems that the minute the ipfw rules are loaded (which previously worked without
issue),
the machine pa
20 matches
Mail list logo
