From owner-freebsd-net Fri Feb 1 0:58:19 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.infowest.com (ns1.infowest.com [204.17.177.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB50637B404 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 00:58:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from there (eq.net [208.186.104.163]) by ns1.infowest.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A60B12151E for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 01:57:40 -0700 (MST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: "Aaron D. Gifford" To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Timeouts on dynamic ipfw rules Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 01:57:36 -0700 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <20020201085740.A60B12151E@ns1.infowest.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org I recently was heard to elocute: >Memory wise, the patches only increase memory use in the dynamic rules (a >single unsigned short), using a union to store the information in the main >ruleset since for keep-state rules the union in question was not in use (or >so I believe - no one has told me otherwise, I can't see a problem, and I >haven't yet heard of any trouble - if there ever was trouble, it would be >easy to move the field out of the union). Oops. s/unsigned short/unsigned long/g; Scratch that "unsigned short" and make it an "unsigned long" (or "u_int32_t") instead in the above paragraph. Aaron out. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message