[Bug 209475] pf didn't check if enough free RAM for net.pf.states_hashsize

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209475 --- Comment #18 from fehmi noyan isi --- (In reply to Kristof Provost from comment #17) Sounds a better approach than I suggested, thanks! As the allocation size can be set by the user, don't you think mallocarray(9)

[Bug 193568] PF rdr rule with ipv6 does not work

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193568 Alan Somers changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug 209475] pf didn't check if enough free RAM for net.pf.states_hashsize

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209475 --- Comment #17 from Kristof Provost --- (In reply to fehmi noyan isi from comment #16) Yes, absolutely. The potential for integer overflow is a separate issue. I wouldn't try check_if_we_have_enough_memory() though.

[Bug 209475] pf didn't check if enough free RAM for net.pf.states_hashsize

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209475 --- Comment #19 from Kristof Provost --- (In reply to fehmi noyan isi from comment #18) Yes, mallocarray() would indeed be better. I'd suggest doing that in a separate commit mostly because mallocarray() currently only

[Bug 193568] PF rdr rule with ipv6 does not work

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193568 --- Comment #4 from Alan Somers --- Good find Richard. I didn't know that site-local addresses were deprecated, though I hadn't ever noticed anybody using them. I'll keep searching for a better solution, because I

[Bug 193568] PF rdr rule with ipv6 does not work

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193568 Richard Gallamore changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug 209475] pf didn't check if enough free RAM for net.pf.states_hashsize

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209475 --- Comment #20 from fehmi noyan isi --- ok, if a patch with malloc(9) could find its way into stable/11, it would pay to use malloc(9). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.