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.

_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to ""

Reply via email to