On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 12:09:05PM +0100, Daniel Hartmeier wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, the line is pf.c:2190 's->nat_rule->states++;'.
>
> If you have pf.c prior to 1.278, that would explain the crash, it was
> fixed with 1.278 later that day (s->nat-rule could be NULL before).
I figured that s
If I'm not mistaken, the line is pf.c:2190 's->nat_rule->states++;'.
If you have pf.c prior to 1.278, that would explain the crash, it was
fixed with 1.278 later that day (s->nat-rule could be NULL before).
Daniel
On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 03:04:43AM -0500, jolan wrote:
> Please let me know if any other information is needed.
If you still have the same sources that you built that kernel from,
could you produce the objdump output as described on
http://www.benzedrine.cx/crashreport.html
Alternatively, do
sendto(e37ac3b8,e37ebf88,e37ebf80,e34b9000,0) at _sys_sendto+0x56
_syscall() at _syscall+0x279
--- syscall (number 133) ---
0x400a17f:
I was listening to mp3's over nfs. The machine that the crash happened
on was the server.
I had another crash in pf_test_udp earlier but unfortunately I did not
tr
