> On Apr 6, 2023, at 3:56 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>
> On 4/5/23 21:44, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>> On 4/5/23 20:23, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>>> What if we remove the CTLFLAG_VNET check from the code you posted above?
>>> I don't see anything going wrong, rather going right
>>>
>>>
> On Apr 6, 2023, at 3:56 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>
> On 4/5/23 21:44, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>> On 4/5/23 20:23, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
>>> What if we remove the CTLFLAG_VNET check from the code you posted above?
>>> I don't see anything going wrong, rather going right
>>>
>>>
On 4/5/23 21:44, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On 4/5/23 20:23, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
What if we remove the CTLFLAG_VNET check from the code you posted above?
I don't see anything going wrong, rather going right
CTLFLAG_VNET will not mask away CTLFLAG_TUN.
Hi Gleb,
It's possible to bypass
On 4/5/23 20:23, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
What if we remove the CTLFLAG_VNET check from the code you posted above?
I don't see anything going wrong, rather going right
CTLFLAG_VNET will not mask away CTLFLAG_TUN.
Hi Gleb,
It's possible to bypass that check, but some work needs to be done
echo "net.link.bridge.log_stp=1" >> /boot/loader.conf
H> > # reboot
H> > # kldload if_bridge
H> > # sysctl net.link.bridge.log_stp
H> > net.link.bridge.log_stp: 0
H> >
H> > So is it valid to combine CTLFLAG_TUN with CTLFLAG_VNET ?
H>
H> You can spe
