* Martin Hedenfalk - 17-09-2010 ` 00h29:
Hi Remi,
Attached is an alternative diff that tries to fix this for all
tables.
Ok, it works well, and also works with other tables, single value or
snmpwalk style with getnext.
Does this fix the issue as well?
-martin
Index:
The following reply was made to PR system/6468; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi?= Laurent remi.laur...@conostix.com
To: Martin Hedenfalk mar...@bzero.se
Cc: gn...@cvs.openbsd.org, b...@cvs.openbsd.org
Subject: Re: system/6468: snmpd segfault when receiving a GET request on
Synopsis: syntax change of pf might have broken no-df option
State-Changed-From-To: open-closed
State-Changed-By: henning
State-Changed-When: Mon Sep 20 02:34:02 MDT 2010
State-Changed-Why:
no-df works fine, just verified again
On 2010/09/20 12:02, Einar Lvnn wrote:
Hi again,
Sorry for asking this, but;
Did you really test the no-df option in the case where *all* UDP-fragments
have DF set? It seems to work fine when some have the flag.
I couldn't get it to work with your example command line either..
On Tuesday 21 September 2010, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2010/09/20 12:02, Einar Lvnn wrote:
Hi again,
Sorry for asking this, but;
Did you really test the no-df option in the case where *all*
UDP-fragments have DF set? It seems to work fine when some have the
flag.
I couldn't get
On 2010/09/21 01:42, Joel Sing wrote:
On Tuesday 21 September 2010, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2010/09/20 12:02, Einar Lvnn wrote:
Hi again,
Sorry for asking this, but;
Did you really test the no-df option in the case where *all*
UDP-fragments have DF set? It seems to work
