On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 11:47:21PM +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> would you be able to try patch below to check if it will fix pf_forward
> failures?
Yes, this fixes it. OK bluhm@
> thanks a lot
> and sorry for inconveniences
Thanks for the quick fix. And there was no inconvenience, I have
written the pf tests to find regressions.
bluhm
> --------8<---------------8<---------------8<------------------8<--------
> diff -r eb40d8d52679 src/sys/net/pf.c
> --- a/src/sys/net/pf.c Fri May 19 23:35:22 2017 +0200
> +++ b/src/sys/net/pf.c Fri May 19 23:40:35 2017 +0200
> @@ -3644,6 +3644,7 @@ pf_test_rule(struct pf_pdesc *pd, struct
> ctx.rsm = rsm;
> ctx.th = &pd->hdr.tcp;
> ctx.act.rtableid = pd->rdomain;
> + ctx.tag = -1;
> SLIST_INIT(&ctx.rules);
>
> if (pd->dir == PF_IN && if_congested()) {
> --------8<---------------8<---------------8<------------------8<--------
