Kristof Provost wrote:
Can you give this a quick test:diff --git a/sys/netpfil/pf/pf.c b/sys/netpfil/pf/pf.c index 1dfc37d..762b82e 100644 --- a/sys/netpfil/pf/pf.c +++ b/sys/netpfil/pf/pf.c @@ -1973,9 +1973,9 @@ pf_addr_wrap_neq(struct pf_addr_wrap *aw1, struct pf_addr_wrap *aw2) switch (aw1->type) { case PF_ADDR_ADDRMASK: case PF_ADDR_RANGE: - if (PF_ANEQ(&aw1->v.a.addr, &aw2->v.a.addr, 0)) + if (PF_ANEQ(&aw1->v.a.addr, &aw2->v.a.addr, AF_INET6)) return (1); - if (PF_ANEQ(&aw1->v.a.mask, &aw2->v.a.mask, 0)) + if (PF_ANEQ(&aw1->v.a.mask, &aw2->v.a.mask, AF_INET6)) return (1); return (0); case PF_ADDR_DYNIFTL:
Your patch appears to solve the problem. Thanks! Also thank you for your quick response. Sorry I took so long to reply, but I was getting bizarre results from the "quick" test, and needed to fall back to a full kernel rebuild w/ a consistent set of sources to do a fair apples to apples comparison. tom _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
