[Bug 233955] net/wireguard Occassional hard reboot of FreeBSD 11.2-RELEASE-p6 when used together with setfib(1)

2019-02-27 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233955 --- Comment #10 from Marek Zarychta --- (In reply to Marek Zarychta from comment #9) 13-CURRENT not STABLE of course -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. ___

[Bug 233955] net/wireguard Occassional hard reboot of FreeBSD 11.2-RELEASE-p6 when used together with setfib(1)

2019-02-27 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233955 Marek Zarychta changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zarych...@plan-b.pwste.edu.

[Bug 233955] net/wireguard Occassional hard reboot of FreeBSD 11.2-RELEASE-p6 when used together with setfib(1)

2019-02-27 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=233955 --- Comment #8 from Manas Bhatnagar --- I see this on FreeBSD 12.0-RELEASE-p3 without setfib as well. Every 'wg-quick down wg0' command has resulted in a hard reboot. wireguard-0.0.20190123 wireguard-go-0.0.20181222 -- You are receiving

Re: use of #ifdef INET and #ifdef INET6 in the kernel sources

2019-02-27 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
> On 28 Feb 2019, at 1:11, Rick Macklem wrote: > > > I thought (can't remember when/how I was told) that it was no longer > > recommended to add > > #ifdef INET > > or > > #ifdef INET6 > > to the kernel sources. > > Not sure who said this. > > > I'll admit I think #ifdef'ng code when it isn't ne

Re: use of #ifdef INET and #ifdef INET6 in the kernel sources

2019-02-27 Thread Bjoern A. Zeeb
On 28 Feb 2019, at 1:11, Rick Macklem wrote: I thought (can't remember when/how I was told) that it was no longer recommended to add #ifdef INET or #ifdef INET6 to the kernel sources. Not sure who said this. I'll admit I think #ifdef'ng code when it isn't necessary to get it to build makes t

use of #ifdef INET and #ifdef INET6 in the kernel sources

2019-02-27 Thread Rick Macklem
I thought (can't remember when/how I was told) that it was no longer recommended to add #ifdef INET or #ifdef INET6 to the kernel sources. I'll admit I think #ifdef'ng code when it isn't necessary to get it to build makes the code less readable and, as such, I prefer not to do this. So, is this

[Bug 234026] [panic] [dummynet] Repeatable panic in dummynet due to locking issues and use-after-free

2019-02-27 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=234026 Stanislav Trofimov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||norespo...@yandex.ru --- Comm

[Bug 236067] [em] Intel 82574L can not turn off flow control

2019-02-27 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236067 --- Comment #2 from Eric Joyner --- (In reply to Eric Joyner from comment #1) Sorry, I re-read your initial comment; it looks like this problem only occurs when both sides are 82574L. That's interesting. -- You are receiving this mail be

[Bug 236067] [em] Intel 82574L can not turn off flow control

2019-02-27 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=236067 Eric Joyner changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@freebsd.org --- Comment #1 from

[Bug 235704] [net] [patch] tun(4) can't be destroyed on a VNET jail if it's renamed

2019-02-27 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235704 --- Comment #7 from Kristof Provost --- I've updated the patch on https://reviews.freebsd.org/D19248 to fix the unit number issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _