Re: Question about tables in nested anchor on pf since 6.1

Hi, I've applied the patch on 6.2 and it fixes the problem. # pfctl -ef /etc/pf.conf pf enabled # pfctl -a /uno/due -t foo -T show 10.0.0.1 # pfctl

Re: Question about tables in nested anchor on pf since 6.1

If I change the load statement in pf.uno using the full path ( /uno/due instead of due ); thens there is no error; but still no table is loaded. /etc/pf.conf: ### block log anchor "uno" load anchor "uno" from "/etc/pf.uno" ### /etc/pf.uno

Question about tables in nested anchor on pf since 6.1

Hi, there is a confusing error message in 6.1 and 6.2 (not in 6.0) when using a table inside a nested anchor. here the rules: /etc/pf.conf: ### block log anchor "uno" load anchor "uno" from "/etc/pf.uno" ### /etc/pf.uno

amdmsr_probe() fails on PCEngines' ALIX2D13

I'm using OpenBSD-current (cvs'd 2 days ago) Trying to use flashrom on this board (AMD Geode LX 800 + CS 5536), I found that the /dev/amdmsr device was Not Configured. Early in the boot, when calling amdmsr_probe() the code doesn't configure MSR access because when reading GLX_GP_GLD_MSR_CAP the

Re: pf logs: def/(short) pass in , but should say block

On 05/14/2012 08:41 PM, Alexander Bluhm wrote: The variable action does not hold the final action at this place. It could be PF_SYNPROXY_DROP PF_DEFER PF_DIVERT PF_AFRT, we don't want to log this. It is rewrittren in the switch (action) block below. Moving the logging after the switch

pf logs: def/(short) pass in , but should say block

, reason, action, + ri-r, a, ruleset); } } Are they ok? Leonardo. Original Message Subject: pf logs: def/(short) pass in , but should say block Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 01:29:16 +0200 From: Leonardo Guardati leona