The following reply was made to PR kern/190102; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: hiren panchasara
To: Eygene Ryabinkin
Cc: FreeBSD GNATS followup ,
"freebsd-net@freebsd.org"
Subject: Re: kern/190102: [tcp] net.inet.tcp.drop_synfin=1 no longer works on
FreeBSD 10+ [regression]
Date: W
hi
the rule of ipfw is kind of semantic, and it is powerful. so it means good
for normal users. but not for developers of it, because simplicity actually
is hidden complexity.that is the reason developers fulfilled so many rule
options to match the traffic. and the man page of ipfw becomes long lo
Looks very similar to ng_bpf + ipfw ngtee, isn't it?
29.05.2014 11:25, Bill Yuan пишет:
> It is a really powerful thing in my opinion. but it has requirement,
> to master it requires the knowledge of the structure of the
> packet/frame/whatever. Anyone like this feature? Like it ? please
> voice o
Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:52:51PM -0700, hiren panchasara wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
> > I assume that your pf(4) is enabled during these tests, you have
> > "scrub" statements in the ruleset and removing "scrub" will restore
> > the expected behaviour on 10.x
The following reply was made to PR kern/190102; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Eygene Ryabinkin
To: hiren panchasara
Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" ,
FreeBSD GNATS followup
Subject: Re: kern/190102: [tcp] net.inet.tcp.drop_synfin=1 no longer works on
FreeBSD 10+ [regression]
Date: Th
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Bill Yuan wrote:
> hi
>
> the rule of ipfw is kind of semantic, and it is powerful. so it means good
> for normal users. but not for developers of it, because simplicity actually
>
...
>
> So i am proposing a new rule option `u32` and the usage will be "u32
>
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 02:34:47AM -0400, Jason Hellenthal wrote:
> Is anyone aware that VIMAGE on powerpc is currently broken ?
Hi Jason,
Did you mean that compile VIMAGE support into your kernel will fail?
If so, what compiler do you use? Thanks.
>
> In file included from /export/usr/src/sys
The following reply was made to PR kern/190102; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Mark Felder
To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: kern/190102: [tcp] net.inet.tcp.drop_synfin=1 no longer works on
FreeBSD 10 [regression]
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 07:25:31 -0500
The test box in particul
Hi,
I'm working on the OSv project (http://osv.io/), a new BSD-licensed
operating system for virtual machines. OSv's networking code is based
on that of FreeBSD.
I recently noticed an inefficiency that I believe exists also in
FreeBSD's networking code, and I was wondering why this was done,
and
Sure your generic binary match could be a welcome
addition to ipfw. But its usefulness is extremely
limited in practice, as it only lets you match stuff
in fixed position of a packet, and it is not even good
to do other relatively simple things such as skip
options and the like.
Sure. W
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 08:45:26PM +0800, bycn82 wrote:
...
>
> Sure, that is the reason why developers are providing more and more rule
> options. But the my question is do we have enough options to match all the
> fixed position values?
we do not have an option for fixed position matching.
A
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 08:45:26PM +0800, bycn82 wrote:
> ...
> >
> > Sure, that is the reason why developers are providing more and more rule
> options. But the my question is do we have enough options to match all the
> fixed position values
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 08:45:26PM +0800, bycn82 wrote:
>> ...
>> >
>> > Sure, that is the reason why developers are providing more and more
>> rule options. But the my question is
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Andreas Nilsson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 08:45:26PM +0800, bycn82 wrote:
>>> ...
>>> >
>>> > Sure, that is the reason why developers
-Original Message-
From: 'Luigi Rizzo' [mailto:ri...@iet.unipi.it]
Sent: 29 May, 2014 21:10
To: bycn82
Cc: 'FreeBSD Net'
Subject: Re: propose a new generic purpose rule option for ipfw
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 08:45:26PM +0800, bycn82 wrote:
...
>
> Sure, that is the reason why d
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:48:58PM +0800, bycn82 wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: 'Luigi Rizzo' [mailto:ri...@iet.unipi.it]
> Sent: 29 May, 2014 21:10
> To: bycn82
> Cc: 'FreeBSD Net'
> Subject: Re: propose a new generic purpose rule option for ipfw
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 29, 20
Hi Kevin,
Default on PowerPC is GCC 4.2.1
Its hard to see that this wouldn't turn up elsewhere on other arch' stop though
as from what I seen doesn't seem to be dependent on PowerPC alone.
But to confirm my previous build, after backing out udplite the build did
complete just fine. I'll find o
Then it will be very good to see your pf.conf and pfctl -s all,
because just now I can't reproduce that on 10.x without "scrub".
--
Eygene Ryabinkin,,,^..^,,,
[ Life's unfair - but root password helps! | codelabs.ru ]
[ 82FE 06BC D497 C0DE 49EC 4F
Hi,
Does any plan commit and MFC to the 10-stable ?
Regards
Simon
于 14-5-29 0:42, Julien Charbon 写道:
Hi,
On 23/05/14 22:52, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 23/05/14 14:06, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 27/02/14 11:32, Julien Charbon wrote:
On 07/11/13 14:55, Julien Charbon wrote:
On Mon, 04 Nov
19 matches
Mail list logo
