On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:17:47PM +0100, Kristof Provost wrote:
> On 13 Nov 2018, at 22:01, Andreas Longwitz wrote:
> >>
> >> Are there any hints why the counter pf_default_rule->states_cur
> >> could get a negative value ?
> >>
> >> I’m afraid I have no idea right now.
> >>
> >
> > OK, in
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:01:14PM +0100, Andreas Longwitz wrote:
A> OK, in the meantime I did some more research and I am now quite sure the
A> problem with the bogus pf_default_rule->states_cur counter is not a
A> problem in pf. I am convinced it is a problem in counter(9) on i386
A> server. The
On 13 Nov 2018, at 22:01, Andreas Longwitz wrote:
Are there any hints why the counter pf_default_rule->states_cur
could get a negative value ?
I’m afraid I have no idea right now.
OK, in the meantime I did some more research and I am now quite sure
the
problem with the bogus pf_def
>
> Are there any hints why the counter pf_default_rule->states_cur
> could get a negative value ?
>
> I’m afraid I have no idea right now.
>
OK, in the meantime I did some more research and I am now quite sure the
problem with the bogus pf_default_rule->states_cur counter is not a
prob
