Gentlemen,
We're experiencing a kernel panic in dummynet under high load (around
100-110Kpps) in the bridge configuration. It appears that somehow
packets with empty mbuf packet header appear on top of the queue - that
is they have no tag, pointer to the next packet in the queue is null,
e
Note: to view an individual PR, use:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=(number).
The following is a listing of current problems submitted by FreeBSD users.
These represent problem reports covering all versions including
experimental development code and obsolete releases.
S Tracker
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:36:15PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just a question: Is the output from "ipfw list" supposed
> to be in the same rule format that is accepted as input?
> If that's the case, then there is a small bug:
>
> # ipfw add 100 allow ip from any to '{' 1.1.1.1 or 2.2
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:36:15PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just a question: Is the output from "ipfw list" supposed
> > to be in the same rule format that is accepted as input?
> > If that's the case, then there is a small bug:
> >
> > # ipfw add
Synopsis: [patch] ipfw(8) list show some rules with a wrong format
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed
State-Changed-By: sem
State-Changed-When: Mon Mar 15 19:02:28 UTC 2010
State-Changed-Why:
Fixed with r205179
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=115172
__
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 07:57:24PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
>
> Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:36:15PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Just a question: Is the output from "ipfw list" supposed
> > > to be in the same rule format that is accepted as inp
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 07:57:24PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > Do you think this could be merged to stable/8 and stable/7?
>
> it's a trivial change to the userland program so whoever wants
> to do the merge is welcome. I should be able to merge to stable/8
> perhaps
