Re: kernel: nd6_storelladdr failed, mbuf leak

2001-03-08 Thread itojun
>I'll do it right now if itojun doesn't mind (to save him a task :-) ) >and get authorization from Jordan to commit. please go ahead, i can review the diff if you want me to. itojun To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message

Re: kernel: nd6_storelladdr failed, mbuf leak

2001-03-08 Thread Bosko Milekic
Euuh, scratch that. I don't see anything committed to HEAD yet, at all. No use in MFCing something that hasn't yet been committed. :-) Bosko I wrote: > I'll do it right now if itojun doesn't mind (to save him a task :-) ) > and get authorization from Jordan to commit. > > Thanks, > Bosko. > > J

Re: kernel: nd6_storelladdr failed, mbuf leak

2001-03-08 Thread Bosko Milekic
I'll do it right now if itojun doesn't mind (to save him a task :-) ) and get authorization from Jordan to commit. Thanks, Bosko. John Hay wrote: > > > > >> > will correct it. thanks for reporting. > > > > http://www.kame.net/dev/cvsweb.cgi/kame/kame/sys/netinet6/nd6.c.diff?r 1=1.135&r2=1.136

Re: kernel: nd6_storelladdr failed, mbuf leak

2001-03-08 Thread John Hay
> > >> > will correct it. thanks for reporting. > > >http://www.kame.net/dev/cvsweb.cgi/kame/kame/sys/netinet6/nd6.c.diff?r1=1.135&r2=1.136 > > itojun > Any chance of this finding its way into -current and -stable (preferably before the release)? John -- John Hay -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] To

Re: [itojun@iijlab.net: accept(2) behavior with tcp RST right after handshake]

2001-03-08 Thread itojun
>From the server's point of view: > >+ TCP/IP handshake from client, allocate protocol control blocks >+ receive data from client >+ client resets connection, pcb is destroyed > >Exactly why the client resets the connection isn't my concern at >the moment. Some stacks may place a t

Re: [itojun@iijlab.net: accept(2) behavior with tcp RST right after handshake]

2001-03-08 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 02:30:23PM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Jonathan Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010308 14:19] wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 01:00:48PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > Jonathan Lemon: > > > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:38:17AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > > > I

Re: [itojun@iijlab.net: accept(2) behavior with tcp RST right after handshake]

2001-03-08 Thread Barney Wolff
The graceful-close debate is a very old one, going back more than twenty years. X.25 and ISO-TP have non-graceful close - the close can pass data in the network and cause it to be lost. TCP is defined as graceful-close. In SVR4 TLI there are two types of stream "sockets" with graceful or ugly c

Re: [itojun@iijlab.net: accept(2) behavior with tcp RST right after handshake]

2001-03-08 Thread Alfred Perlstein
* Jonathan Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010308 14:19] wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 01:00:48PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > > Jonathan Lemon: > > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:38:17AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > > If the result of connect() write() close() depends on whether > > > > accept(

Re: [itojun@iijlab.net: accept(2) behavior with tcp RST right after handshake]

2001-03-08 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 01:00:48PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > Jonathan Lemon: > > On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:38:17AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > If the result of connect() write() close() depends on whether > > > accept() happens after or before close(), then the behavior is > > > broken.

Re: [itojun@iijlab.net: accept(2) behavior with tcp RST right afterhandshake]

2001-03-08 Thread Wietse Venema
Jonathan Graehl: > > > Data CAN be lost if the TCP connection is RST. It has nothing to > > > do with the ordering of accept() with respect to close(). > > > > Please educate me: how would RST come into this discussion at all? > > The client does connect() write() close(), there is no forced > >

RE: [itojun@iijlab.net: accept(2) behavior with tcp RST right after handshake]

2001-03-08 Thread Jonathan Graehl
I would like to preempt corrections to the effect that it is currently impossible for accept to return both an error code and a socket to read the data from. It sounds like there may be a bug in the behavior of accept w.r.t Unix Domain sockets. For TCP, if the client sends data, then closes with

RE: [itojun@iijlab.net: accept(2) behavior with tcp RST right after handshake]

2001-03-08 Thread Jonathan Graehl
> > Data CAN be lost if the TCP connection is RST. It has nothing to > > do with the ordering of accept() with respect to close(). > > Please educate me: how would RST come into this discussion at all? > The client does connect() write() close(), there is no forced > connection termination involv

Strong vs. Weak ES models?

2001-03-08 Thread Yu-Shun Wang
Hi, Has the topic of Strong/Weak ES model been discussed here? Please give me a pointer if the topic has been debated. I was wondering if there's a sysctl switch (like net.inet.ip.strongendsystem mentioned in NetBSD list) implemented in FreeBSD. yu

Re: [itojun@iijlab.net: accept(2) behavior with tcp RST right afterhandshake]

2001-03-08 Thread Wietse Venema
Jonathan Lemon: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:38:17AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > > If the result of connect() write() close() depends on whether > > accept() happens after or before close(), then the behavior is > > broken. The client has received a successful return from write() > > and close()

Re: [itojun@iijlab.net: accept(2) behavior with tcp RST right after handshake]

2001-03-08 Thread Jonathan Lemon
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 10:38:17AM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > If the result of connect() write() close() depends on whether > accept() happens after or before close(), then the behavior is > broken. The client has received a successful return from write() > and close(). The system is not suppos

Re: [itojun@iijlab.net: accept(2) behavior with tcp RST right afterhandshake]

2001-03-08 Thread Wietse Venema
If the result of connect() write() close() depends on whether accept() happens after or before close(), then the behavior is broken. The client has received a successful return from write() and close(). The system is not supposed to lose the data, period. This race condition did not exist with UN

RE: FW: MS Shares through IPFW

2001-03-08 Thread Patrick O'Reilly
FIXED !!! Thanks to you all (Bill, Blair and Johnny) for your help. It turns out the problem was not at the transport level at all (seriously red face now!) The login and password was the issue - Since the clients and server are not on the same windows NT domain, the NT server was validating th

Intel PRO/100+ PCI problem

2001-03-08 Thread Rafael Tonin
I'm having some problems on configuring my just purchased Intel PRO/100+ PCI (reported by Intel as being P#: 689661-004).   When booting, FreeBSD 4.2 reports:   fxp0: at device 13.0 on pci0fxp0: could not map memory   Anyone knows how to get this card to work?   Really Thanks,   Rafael Toni

RE: MS Shares through IPFW

2001-03-08 Thread Johnny . Dang
Title: RE: MS Shares through IPFW Hi Patrick, Another issue here is the workgroup of the NT/Win PCs. You will have to set all PCs in the same workgroup named such as MYWORKGROUP, plus do you use authentication at all? Is your NT network in a peer-to-peer or domain schema? I hope this help.

Re: FW: MS Shares through IPFW

2001-03-08 Thread Bill Fumerola
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 11:47:45AM +0200, Patrick O'Reilly wrote: > In my desperation I have gone as far as adding these two very loose rules, > which are the very first rules in the ipfw chain: > > /sbin/ipfw -q add 9 allow log ip from 10.5.5.0/24 to 10.3.3.240 > /sbin/ipfw -q add 0

FW: MS Shares through IPFW

2001-03-08 Thread Patrick O'Reilly
Hi all! I need to allow some M$ clients to access M$ shares on an NT server, the clients and server being on opposite sides of a FreeBSD ipfw firewall. The firewall is running fine (has been for 6 months) but I cannot get this D**N Netbios stuff going. In my desperation I have gone as far as ad