The following reply was made to PR bin/120720; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Vadim Goncharov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Eugene Grosbein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: bin/120720: [patch] [ipfw] unbreak POLA for ipfw table list
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008
Current FreeBSD problem reports
Critical problems
Serious problems
S Tracker Resp. Description
o kern/51274 ipfw [ipfw] [patch] ipfw2 create dynamic rules with parent
o kern/73910 ipfw
Vadim Goncharov wrote:
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Eugene Grosbein!
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:42:16 +0700 (KRAT); Eugene Grosbein
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The command ipfw table 1 list used to format table values
associated with network addresses as
The following reply was made to PR bin/120720; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Vadim Goncharov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Eugene Grosbein [EMAIL PROTECTED], freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: bin/120720: [patch] [ipfw] unbreak POLA for
Synopsis: [patch] [ipfw] unbreak POLA for ipfw table list
State-Changed-From-To: open-closed
State-Changed-By: julian
State-Changed-When: Mon Feb 18 11:27:58 PST 2008
State-Changed-Why:
Patch committed to -current and scheduled for MFC.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=120720
The following reply was made to PR bin/120734; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dfilter service)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: bin/120734: commit references a PR
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:26:40 + (UTC)
piso2008-02-18 20:26:34 UTC
FreeBSD src
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 11:52:41AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Synopsis: [patch] [ipfw] unbreak POLA for ipfw table list
State-Changed-From-To: open-closed
State-Changed-By: julian
State-Changed-When: Mon Feb 18 11:27:58 PST 2008
State-Changed-Why:
Patch committed to -current and
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:32:32AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
that was me..
It is my memory that
before that time tableargs were only used in 16 bit form.
there were no users in ipfw of the full 32 bit field.
In RELENG_4, they are 32bit.
I did not consider that someone would put a 32
