On Sun, 2002/07/14 at 23:08:21 -0400, Mike Barcroft wrote:
Thomas Moestl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(Disclaimer: my solution below is untested, so it may all be bogus)
As request, here are the test results.
Most rules work, except my final one:
%%%
bowie# ipfw add allow all from any to
sorry but all this just does not make sense to me.
sizeof(foo) should give the same result irrespective of
where you use it.
Perhaps the best thing would be to put a
printf(struct ip_fw has size %d\n, sizeof(struct ip_fw));
both in ipfw2.c and somewhere in ip_fw2.c and see if there is
On Mon, 2002/07/15 at 04:00:08 -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
sorry but all this just does not make sense to me.
sizeof(foo) should give the same result irrespective of
where you use it.
OK, let me rephrase it: as I explained before, struct ip_fw has padding
after 'cmd' (the last member) to
On Mon, 2002/07/15 at 04:24:33 -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
sorry but all this just does not make sense to me.
sizeof(foo) should give the same result irrespective of
where you use it.
Perhaps the best thing would be to put a
printf(struct ip_fw has
Thomas Moestl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh, right, that's related: the kernel checks for a minimum size of the
passed data on two occasions, first in sooptcopyin(), and then again
in check_ipfw_struct().
It the size to be at least sizeof(struct ip_fw), however for
structures containing just
Richard Tobin wrote:
Er, no, that's not right. Otherwise
[ ... ]
If everyone could read the text past my example of bad math, so
that they could know it was an intentional example of bad math,
live would be beautiful. 8-).
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, David Taylor wrote:
Bah, ignore me, it appears you've already admitted your post was rather
less than clear :)
--
David Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The future just ain't what it used to be
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the
Luigi Rizzo wrote:
Hi,
the following message seems to suggest that the compiler
(the way it is invoked) packs structures differently
when building the kernel and userland.
The stize of the structure in question is computed
by both kernel and userland app using sizeof(),
so there is no
On Sun, 2002/07/14 at 01:18:10 -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
Hi,
the following message seems to suggest that the compiler
(the way it is invoked) packs structures differently
when building the kernel and userland.
The stize of the structure in question is computed
by both kernel and userland
[i am deliberately not trimming the email in case someone wants to
look at the context]
i am a bit dubious about your explaination -- it also does not
explain why the person reporting this problem fixed that
by swapping timestamp and next_rule in the structure
cheers
luigi
On
On Sun, 2002/07/14 at 13:43:37 -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
[i am deliberately not trimming the email in case someone wants to
look at the context]
i am a bit dubious about your explaination -- it also does not
explain why the person reporting this problem fixed that
by swapping timestamp and
11 matches
Mail list logo
