Hi,
(while technically in the wrong mail thread for the "should PF stay?"
discussion, this is still interesting)
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 07:39:31AM +, tincanteksup wrote:
> I agree that a VPN should focus on its task and not try to be a firewall.
>
> I do use the PF plugin but it is of
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 08:02:42AM +0100, Arne Schwabe wrote:
> I agree to make this "fixed" in a way that doesn't involve refactoring
> of pf code that is later removed anyway. I don't think the refactoring
> early affects this. It has been probably broken even earlier.
So I got myself
feed back:
On 22/01/2021 07:02, Arne Schwabe wrote:
Am 21.01.21 um 14:39 schrieb Gert Doering:
Without this patch, if openpn is using a plugin that provides
OPENVPN_PLUGIN_ENABLE_PF but then fails (returns OPENVPN_PLUGIN_FUNC_ERROR),
OpenVPN will crash on a NULL pointer reference.
The
Am 21.01.21 um 14:39 schrieb Gert Doering:
> Without this patch, if openpn is using a plugin that provides
> OPENVPN_PLUGIN_ENABLE_PF but then fails (returns OPENVPN_PLUGIN_FUNC_ERROR),
> OpenVPN will crash on a NULL pointer reference.
>
> The underlying cause is (likely) the refactoring work
Without this patch, if openpn is using a plugin that provides
OPENVPN_PLUGIN_ENABLE_PF but then fails (returns OPENVPN_PLUGIN_FUNC_ERROR),
OpenVPN will crash on a NULL pointer reference.
The underlying cause is (likely) the refactoring work regarding
CAS_SUCCEEDED etc., and that nobody adjusted
