On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 11:34:23AM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> I suggest bugging bz@ as much as possible. :)
This has been committed already. Thanks!
-- WXS
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
I'm still hoping someone who cares about IPv6 is willing to commit this
fix for libpcap in the base before 9.0. Is anyone willing to tackle
this? It's been in the port for a while now, and in upstream for even
longer.
-- WXS
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 03:30:07PM -0400, Wesley Shields wro
I've updated the port to address this. The audit trail for this PR has a
patch which touches more than just libpcap. I'm curious if anyone on
this list has comments on it, and if any committer wants to commit it
(at least the libpcap part, the others appear right to me).
-- WXS
On Sat, May 21, 20
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:57:18PM -0600, Brandon Gooch wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Wesley Shields wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 07:45:40PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:40:57 -0600
> >> Brandon Gooch wrote:
> >>
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:57:18PM -0600, Brandon Gooch wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Wesley Shields wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 07:45:40PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:40:57 -0600
> >> Brandon Gooch wrote:
> >>
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 07:45:40PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 13:40:57 -0600
> Brandon Gooch wrote:
>
> > BTW, if you give your devices descriptions, libpcap
> > starts to behave again; this could be a clue to the source of the bug
> > :/
>
> 0xa5 is the malloc fill pattern wh
I'm looking for someone with knowledge of BPF to review this patch:
http://people.freebsd.org/~wxs/bpf.diff
It's basically a fixed version of the one in kern/143855. Using the test
program provided I was able to get the callback to be called with this
patch. Without it the callback was never call
On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 09:47:05PM +0100, C?dric Jonas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I get TCP/UDP checksum errors with fxp(4). I noticed it after using
> Wireshark today:
>
> Checksum: 0xac18 [incorrect, should be 0xfbc7 (maybe caused by
> checksum offloading?)]
>
> for example.
>
> If I unders
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 06:34:12AM -0700, Yeow C.H. wrote:
> Thanks Brian.
>
> Simply put Bit-Twist is smaller, do more, medium specific (Ethernet
> II - IEEE 802.3) suite.
>
> Bittwist (packet generator) does not differs much from tcpreplay
> program. I would admit if you say tcprepl
Per a message about a month ago[1] I recently started some work on
adding a -v flag to ifconfig. I've been able to get the index number
and epoch as those are exposed to userland, but both the dname and dunit
are in an ifnet struct which AFAIK is not visible. I initially thought
you might be able
On Sat, Sep 04, 2004 at 10:07:36AM -0400, vxp wrote:
> no. obscurity as the _only_ "security" is no security.
> there's nothing wrong with ADDING obscurity, however. =)
>
> --Val
That is true, but the problem with these kinds of things is that users
will think that with a simple flip of a sysctl
11 matches
Mail list logo
