On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 10:04:53PM -0700, Orville R. Weyrich_Jr wrote:
I have recently been getting a lot of bounce messages addressed to an
in-mail box on my FreeBSD system [EMAIL PROTECTED].
These bounced messages were NOT sent by my system, because there is no
user account by that name
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 03:59:27PM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
this note is to insure everyone is aware. If your are actively working
on stuff related to the network code and I haven't already corresponded
with you; please let me know so we can coordinate our work--I have no
interest in
http://www.freebsd.org/~sam/fastforward.patch
These lock the fast forwarding hash table with a lock per hash bucket.
There is one known issue with these changes: a LOR with the bridge code
caused by holding a lock across the call to forward the packet. Also, some
statistics are not
http://www.freebsd.org/~sam/fastipsec.patch
These changes add locking and cleanup some of the infrastructure; e.g. to
do better accounting of dynamically allocated data structures.
Basic operation is well-tested but I haven't done extensive testing of the
re-keying (e.g. with racoon). There
http://www.freebsd.org/~sam/domain.patch
These add locking to the list of domains.
Sam
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.freebsd.org/~sam/rawsock.patch
This locks the raw socket protocol control blocks using equivalent
techniques to those used for udp, etc. There is one code restructuring
done to simplify this work; equivalent to the one I added for udp.
Note this change also removes the
http://www.freebsd.org/~sam/bridge.patch
This patch adds locking and also overhauls the bridge code some to do
things like replace explicit numbers with #defines and cleanup the
debugging code. I also restructured the forwarding code to avoid grabbing
the ifnet lock if possible and optimized
http://www.freebsd.org/~sam/ipfw.patch
These changes add locking. There are two locks: one for static rules and
one for dynamic rules. The associated dummynet changes are not included as
I haven't tested them yet. The locking scheme may need to be revised to
use something like sx locks;
I am attempting to have dhclient grab two ip's from comcast. I know I have
to set up the dhclient.conf with the pseudo section, but I am lost as what
to do with the dhclient-script. It has to be different as to not drop the
main interface ip configuration, but everything I do seems to just
If memory serves me right, Sam Leffler wrote:
One other minor change: I moved the printf BRIDGE 020214 loaded under
bootverbose. Can anyone tell me what 020214 means?
I recently started using bridge(4) functionality and was wondering
about this too. Based on the output of cvs annotate and
Sam Leffler wrote:
http://www.freebsd.org/~sam/bridge.patch
This patch adds locking and also overhauls the bridge code some to do
things like replace explicit numbers with #defines and cleanup the
debugging code.
This is only mildly related, but maybe someone feels like looking at
this in
Lars Eggert wrote:
Sam Leffler wrote:
http://www.freebsd.org/~sam/bridge.patch
This patch adds locking and also overhauls the bridge code some to do
things like replace explicit numbers with #defines and cleanup the
debugging code.
This is only mildly related, but maybe someone feels like
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Robert Watson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Lars Eggert wrote:
I think you mentioned in the past that NetBSD (OpenBSD?) has bridge code
that implements the pseudo-device approach?
FreeBSD has both.
If you use netgraph bridging then you are using a more
link level
Julian Elischer wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Robert Watson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Lars Eggert wrote:
I think you mentioned in the past that NetBSD (OpenBSD?) has bridge code
that implements the pseudo-device approach?
FreeBSD has both.
If you use netgraph bridging then you are using a
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 10:23:42AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
If memory serves me right, Sam Leffler wrote:
One other minor change: I moved the printf BRIDGE 020214 loaded under
bootverbose. Can anyone tell me what 020214 means?
yes, it is a timestamp -- just to get an idea on when the
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Robert Watson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Lars Eggert wrote:
I think you mentioned in the past that NetBSD (OpenBSD?) has bridge code
that implements the pseudo-device approach?
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Lars Eggert wrote:
I think you mentioned in the past that NetBSD (OpenBSD?) has bridge code
that implements the pseudo-device approach?
Julian Elischer wrote:
FreeBSD has both.
If you use netgraph bridging then you are using a more
link level device like approach.
On Wed,
Well, I guess the spl() fix is probably going to be the quickest here
then, please send it to me once you've pounded on it, Ed.
So my spl() fix seems to eliminate the problem for me but while I'm looking
at this stuff I want to make sure there aren't any related cases left in.
My current patch is
18 matches
Mail list logo
