From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 14 12:48:51 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A410FAAA for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 12:48:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from emz@norma.perm.ru) Received: from elf.hq.norma.perm.ru (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:14c0::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A282E56 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 12:48:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.248.33] ([192.168.248.33]) by elf.hq.norma.perm.ru (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r3ECmiEq028542 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:48:46 +0600 (YEKT) (envelope-from emz@norma.perm.ru) Message-ID: <516AA5AA.1070003@norma.perm.ru> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:48:42 +0600 From: "Eugene M. Zheganin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/165903: mbuf leak References: <201304111942.r3BJg1Eh085644@freefall.freebsd.org> <20130412115443.GU76816@glebius.int.ru> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (elf.hq.norma.perm.ru [192.168.3.10]); Sun, 14 Apr 2013 18:48:47 +0600 (YEKT) X-Spam-Status: No hits=-101.0 bayes=0.5 testhits ALL_TRUSTED=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100 autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on elf.hq.norma.perm.ru X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 12:48:51 -0000 Hi. On 12.04.2013 20:13, Olivier Cochard-Labbé wrote: > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 01:45:51PM +0200, Olivier Cochard-Labb? wrote: >> O> PR closed too soon ? >> >> It isn't closed, it is in patched state. This means that problem >> is considered solve in the head branch, but not in any stable branch. > Ok, thanks for this clarification ! > > More information of my mbuf leak problem now: > > I've got a firewall (FreeBSD 9.0, nanobsd with pf+pfsync, no tunning) in my lab. > Why 9.0 ? Upgrade at least to 9.1-PRERELEASE. 9.0 just doesn't fit to production. Besides mbuf leak - ipsec is also broken in 9.0. Eugene.