Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:56:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Beeblebrox <zaphod@berentweb.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Several minor annoyances on Current Message-ID: <20140731235539.70284a6c@rsbsd.rsb> In-Reply-To: <CABnVG=dL9e5efF6PXYq-URKM8t--K=7T_6zMREdEXQGkiy=6Fg@mail.gmail.com> References: <1406282699515-5931653.post@n5.nabble.com> <CABnVG=dL9e5efF6PXYq-URKM8t--K=7T_6zMREdEXQGkiy=6Fg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> hm, I have similar experience with 10-stable see > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2014-July/259067.html Thankfully, my boot time is not so severe. I have no ideas to help however. * preventing coredump files: setting in ~/.cshrc below does not work. What is the correct syntax? ulimit -c 0 setenv ulimit -c 0 * What is the error below? Could this output hold clues to finding deeper errors? This occurred during an install requiring opengl, but could Radeon-KMS be a contributing cause? Not running in a graphics capable console, and unable to find one. svgalib: ark: Unknown chiptype 29. Not running in a graphics capable console, and unable to find one. Not running in a graphics capable console, and unable to find one. *** Error code 1 ----- FreeBSD-11-current_amd64_root-on-zfs_RadeonKMS -- View this message in context: http://freebsd.1045724.n5.nabble.com/Several-minor-annoyances-on-Current-tp5931653p5933755.html Sent from the freebsd-current mailing list archive at Nabble.com. From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 1 07:39:12 2014 Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG> Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3FE360D; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 07:39:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yk0-x22f.google.com (mail-yk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 755B625A3; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 07:39:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yk0-f175.google.com with SMTP id q200so2227254ykb.6 for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 01 Aug 2014 00:39:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=JXYzz+rAzTjStTfz9EOffugXH0LOQhzSVicI0sOoF0E=; b=HrI0XN8mRFqm03Cjwy/Iv+aR7HOxd3DC9eFBwdU9Hb4z79+Q1C1WfbZy03T6gFyDyI OmEcf8S3o5RZhPMfbUMpkEAFlCYMOVGDaBTsjXZ1aBd531xNkrDatIzKBMOH1HGOHovo al3LstRVo/bxQxq+hZu6w2Q+5nMOv2K9rbJzC9s9bdYPbKArFDtthVKpL9Kd/J81a1Pe hCaWugbksU04Xj3zB+3IczP+ZSevkEGrF3b0BthIQo4GjBZQiqaUMQmmMTtsfYwnTIwC MrKHnnXOnl6o/RMVn0H81dPtopf+JEf7fxQ0abUc+W3FiLjG0iThOnlHA9BIC68V6gGk 7Vaw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.85.208 with SMTP id u56mr5673462yhe.48.1406878751382; Fri, 01 Aug 2014 00:39:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.132.80 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 00:39:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140731134147.GH2402@glebius.int.ru> References: <53C706C9.6090506@com.jkkn.dk> <6326AB9D-C19A-434B-9681-380486C037E2@lastsummer.de> <53CB4736.90809@bluerosetech.com> <201407200939020335.0017641F@smtp.24cl.home> <788274E2-7D66-45D9-89F6-81E8C2615D14@lastsummer.de> <201407201230590265.00B479C4@smtp.24cl.home> <20140729103512.GC89995@FreeBSD.org> <53DA304E.6020105@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20140731134147.GH2402@glebius.int.ru> Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 08:39:11 +0100 Message-ID: <CALfReyerXQm6ehhtKXcJ9XD5fr=0LBShtD8EAUjd9p07xcQvjw@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Future of pf / firewall in FreeBSD ? - does it have one ? From: krad <kraduk@gmail.com> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 11:39:40 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current <freebsd-current.freebsd.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-current>, <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/>; List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org> List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 07:39:12 -0000 I always found natting in ipfw rather awkward and harder than in pf. Looking at the man page it doesnt seem to have changed. I should probably give it another go though as it has been about 10 years now On 31 July 2014 14:41, Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:02:22PM +1000, Da Rock wrote: > D> Without diminishing your efforts so far, what do you think about > D> pitching all efforts into IPFW to combine effort and reduce overhead of > D> maintaining separate firewalls in the core? Is there an advantage to > D> having our own pf? > > Is there any disadvantage keeping it? It is a plugin. It is optional > and loadable. I removed most additions to the network stack that live > outside netpfil/pf. > > Some people like it and use it. > > It is also the only tool to configure ALTQ now. > > -- > Totus tuus, Glebius. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140731235539.70284a6c>