Hello,
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 09:51:29PM +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 10:29:01AM +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> > anyway below is the patch, which Hrvoje was testing and it worked for
> > him.
> > I'd like to get some OK to proceed to commit.
>
> I think i
On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 10:29:01AM +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> anyway below is the patch, which Hrvoje was testing and it worked for him.
> I'd like to get some OK to proceed to commit.
I think it is correct. OK bluhm@
> + if (parent != NULL) {
> + /*
> +
Hello,
> with this patch i can't trigger panic with or without WITH_PF_LOCK if
> that's matter for some reason.
anyway below is the patch, which Hrvoje was testing and it worked for him.
I'd like to get some OK to proceed to commit.
> thank you sasha for great work on MP pf :)
I'm v
On 1.9.2017. 22:57, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote:
> as you can see the kernel sets ruleset.anchor to NULL (see pfattach() and then
> do also a 'grep -n kludge pf_ioctl.c'), while userland links it to
> pf_main_anchor.
>
> I've remember to changing 'parent != NULL' to 'parent != &pf_main_anchor' in
>
Hello Hrvoje,
> Hi,
>
> with this diff i'm getting this panic:
>
> # pfctl -nvf /etc/pf.conf
> set limit states 100
> set skip on { lo em0 }
> block return all
> pass all flags S/SA
> anchor "test1" on ix1 all {
> pass all flags S/SA
> }
>
>
> # pfctl -f /etc/pf.conf
> uvm_fault(0xff
Hello,
long time ago mpi@ asked, what I would improve in PF to make the code ready for
SMP massage. Everybody knows PF is perfect, right? So it took me a while to
find a code for facelift.
Patch below breaks pf_find_or_create_ruleset() spaghetti to more chunks:
pf_find_or_create_ruleset()
