On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 10:37:54PM +, Christian S.J. Peron wrote:
> Good day folks, we need some beta testers
>
Hi, as an author of LOR reports I feel obliged to test this patch. I was
running it for a 2 days and intended to report, that for me everything works
ok, when an panic occured. Regre
On Tuesday 28 September 2004 20:01, Wiktor Niesiobedzki wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 10:37:54PM +, Christian S.J. Peron wrote:
> > Good day folks, we need some beta testers
>
> Hi, as an author of LOR reports I feel obliged to test this patch. I was
> running it for a 2 days and intended to
On 28 Sep 2004 Wiktor Niesiobedzki wrote:
> pf_socket_lookup(cbb24958,cbb2495c,2,cbb24a0c,c15275a0) at
> pf_socket_lookup+0x22
> pf_test_tcp(cbb249c0,cbb249bc,2,c14d6200,c139e500) at pf_test_tcp+0x648
> pf_test(2,c14b8014,cbb24aa8,c15275a0,c15661c0) at pf_test+0x53d
> pf_check_out(0,cbb24aa8,c14b80
On Saturday 25 September 2004 00:37, Christian S.J. Peron wrote:
> Good day folks, we need some beta testers
>
> Currently, those who utilize ucred based firewalling, i.e. firewall
> rules which match based on UID, GID or JAIL ID are subject to lock order
> problems which often results in the syste
Good day folks, we need some beta testers
Currently, those who utilize ucred based firewalling, i.e. firewall
rules which match based on UID, GID or JAIL ID are subject to lock order
problems which often results in the system hard locking. (when giant
is not present ... debug.mpsafenet=1).
This p
5 matches
Mail list logo
