On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 22:06:49 +0000 'skiinglasso2' via qubes-devel wrote: > > Then it is not reproducible, i.e. not a bug, so unman is right. > > Firstly, I said I didn't attempt to capture it, not that it isn't > reproducible.
No steps to reproduce = nothing to reproduce => not reproducible. > Secondly, not reproducible implies not a bug? Absurd claim. I find it absurd to claim that there is "a leak" which you have neither seen, nor even attempted to detect. A bug report requires steps to reproduce. > What are you talking about? Sanity. Facts. Logic. > My explanation of why you misunderstood the reference is **exactly** > the same as what Marek explained. Your initial explanation was > relying purely on systemd ordering semantics, not the key detail that > Marek added about forwarding. Marek simply explained what I was hoping you would understand from the systemd sequencing I showed. There is no network traffic forwarding before network.target. If you can explain how a "leak" is possible without network traffic, that would be a revolution. > I admit my initial concern is no longer valid, but I think it still > make sense to put these rules before network-pre.target. These rules > are commonly used for things other than forwarding. This is quite different from: On Sun, 23 Mar 2025 06:40:23 +0000 'skiinglasso2' via qubes-devel wrote: > There's a bug in qubes-firewall.service. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to qubes-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-devel/20250325085606.38c74c5e%40localhost.
