Re: Possible bug in netinet6/in6_rmx.c ?
On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote: > > > > > By the way, while we are talking about sysctl, I don't suppose you would be > > > willing to review/commit PR 15251? It is a fairly straightforward patch that > > > > I see Jonathan Bresler took it (today). > > > > wow dude! put me on the spot or something! > > jmb ^^^ Ok, so it was jhb, not jmb... Just one letter difference ;-) Andrzej Bialecki // <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> WebGiro AB, Sweden (http://www.webgiro.com) // --- // -- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve. http://www.freebsd.org // --- Small & Embedded FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: Possible bug in netinet6/in6_rmx.c ?
> > > By the way, while we are talking about sysctl, I don't suppose you would be > > willing to review/commit PR 15251? It is a fairly straightforward patch that > > I see Jonathan Bresler took it (today). > wow dude! put me on the spot or something! jmb To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: Possible bug in netinet6/in6_rmx.c ?
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Andrzej Bialecki wrote: > Yeah, something like that. The question is who is going to fix it? INET6 > issues should probably stay in sync with other BSDs and KAME, and > therefore IMHO the maintainer of inet6 code should step out and fix > it... (Hello?? :) > Hmm. Good point. > > By the way, while we are talking about sysctl, I don't suppose you would be > > willing to review/commit PR 15251? It is a fairly straightforward patch that > > I see Jonathan Bresler took it (today). > Actually, I think it was John Baldwin...too many JB's around here :) Kelly -- Kelly Yancey - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Belmont, CA System Administrator, eGroups.com http://www.egroups.com/ Maintainer, BSD Driver Database http://www.posi.net/freebsd/drivers/ Coordinator, Team FreeBSDhttp://www.posi.net/freebsd/Team-FreeBSD/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: Possible bug in netinet6/in6_rmx.c ?
On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Kelly Yancey wrote: > On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Andrzej Bialecki wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > While working on adding dynamic sysctls support, I discovered something > > that looks like a bug. > > > > For kernels that have both INET and INET6, three sysctl entries (rtexpire, > > rtminexpire, rtmaxcache) are registered twice - both in netinet/in_rmx.c > > and netinet6/in6_rmx.c. > > > > It seems they should be registered only once, within a section that is > > common to INET and INET6. > > > > Andrzej Bialecki > > > > I think the real problem is that the rtexpire, rtminexpire, and rtmaxcache > variables are each declared static in netinet/in_rmx.c and again in > netinet6/in6_in6_rmx.c. Do we really need separate learned route expiration > times for ip4 and ip6? If the answer is yes, then the solution should be to > move the ip6 versions under the net.inet.ip6 sysctl tree. > Otherwise, as you suggest, rtexpire and friends need to be common (maybe > directly under net.inet?) Yeah, something like that. The question is who is going to fix it? INET6 issues should probably stay in sync with other BSDs and KAME, and therefore IMHO the maintainer of inet6 code should step out and fix it... (Hello?? :) > By the way, while we are talking about sysctl, I don't suppose you would be > willing to review/commit PR 15251? It is a fairly straightforward patch that I see Jonathan Bresler took it (today). Andrzej Bialecki // <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> WebGiro AB, Sweden (http://www.webgiro.com) // --- // -- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve. http://www.freebsd.org // --- Small & Embedded FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Re: Possible bug in netinet6/in6_rmx.c ?
On Sun, 2 Jul 2000, Andrzej Bialecki wrote: > Hi, > > While working on adding dynamic sysctls support, I discovered something > that looks like a bug. > > For kernels that have both INET and INET6, three sysctl entries (rtexpire, > rtminexpire, rtmaxcache) are registered twice - both in netinet/in_rmx.c > and netinet6/in6_rmx.c. > > It seems they should be registered only once, within a section that is > common to INET and INET6. > > Andrzej Bialecki > I think the real problem is that the rtexpire, rtminexpire, and rtmaxcache variables are each declared static in netinet/in_rmx.c and again in netinet6/in6_in6_rmx.c. Do we really need separate learned route expiration times for ip4 and ip6? If the answer is yes, then the solution should be to move the ip6 versions under the net.inet.ip6 sysctl tree. Otherwise, as you suggest, rtexpire and friends need to be common (maybe directly under net.inet?) By the way, while we are talking about sysctl, I don't suppose you would be willing to review/commit PR 15251? It is a fairly straightforward patch that fixes a number of signed-ness bugs with sysctl as well as fix certain sysctl variables to use the correct data type (mostly an issue when ints and longs are different sizes). Thanks, Kelly -- Kelly Yancey - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Belmont, CA System Administrator, eGroups.com http://www.egroups.com/ Maintainer, BSD Driver Database http://www.posi.net/freebsd/drivers/ Coordinator, Team FreeBSDhttp://www.posi.net/freebsd/Team-FreeBSD/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Possible bug in netinet6/in6_rmx.c ?
Hi, While working on adding dynamic sysctls support, I discovered something that looks like a bug. For kernels that have both INET and INET6, three sysctl entries (rtexpire, rtminexpire, rtmaxcache) are registered twice - both in netinet/in_rmx.c and netinet6/in6_rmx.c. It seems they should be registered only once, within a section that is common to INET and INET6. Andrzej Bialecki // <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> WebGiro AB, Sweden (http://www.webgiro.com) // --- // -- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve. http://www.freebsd.org // --- Small & Embedded FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
