Hello,
my apologize to resend the same diff [1]. I'm not sure I got OK or not.
It can be the case the privately received OK got lost.
The change is required to allow multiple instances of pf_test() running
concurrently. Without this change in, PF trips 'KASSERT(sk->reverse == NULL);'
thanks and
Hello,
> > >
> > > yes that's correct. the patch above comes from my private branch [1].
> > > mpi@ pointed out in off-line email exchange the patch unlocks local
> > > inbound
> > > packets too, which is coming bit early. However for forwarding case
> > > things
> > > seem to
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:46:55AM -0300, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 10/06/19(Mon) 09:29, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > sorry for extra delay (was off-line over the weekend).
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 09:46:24PM +1000, Jonathan Matthew wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 0
On 10/06/19(Mon) 09:29, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> sorry for extra delay (was off-line over the weekend).
>
> On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 09:46:24PM +1000, Jonathan Matthew wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 01:50:51AM +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I've mana
Hello,
sorry for extra delay (was off-line over the weekend).
On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 09:46:24PM +1000, Jonathan Matthew wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 01:50:51AM +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've managed to get pf_test() running in parallel on forwarding path in my
> >
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 01:50:51AM +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've managed to get pf_test() running in parallel on forwarding path in my
> experimental tree. And there was some fall out. PF died on ASSERT() in
> pf_state_key_link_reverse() at line 7371:
>
> 7368 pf_state_k
Hello,
I've managed to get pf_test() running in parallel on forwarding path in my
experimental tree. And there was some fall out. PF died on ASSERT() in
pf_state_key_link_reverse() at line 7371:
7368 pf_state_key_link_reverse(struct pf_state_key *sk, ...)
7369 {
7370 /* Note t