Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 15:55:22 -0500 From: Alex Nash <alex@fa.tdktca.com> To: Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.hb.north.de> Cc: davidg@Root.COM, jhay@mikom.csir.co.za, stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ipfw (was: Re: lockups.) Message-ID: <31D446BA.9BDE134@fa.tdktca.com> References: <199606281833.UAA01717@saturn.hb.north.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Juergen Lock wrote: > > Alex Nash writes: > > > > just in case anyone else here sometimes boots older kernels... > > > or makes mistakes while updating remote :) > > > > Nifty trick, I like it. I just wanted to point out one thing: this > > is only necessary if you plan to boot kernels supped before Feb 23, > > not 0696. > > Umm you are thinking of -current maybe? :) or my -stable must have > had an, errm, interesting problem for quite a while now... > > actually no (thanks cvs :), looks like current is also affected: You mean -stable. Yes, as of Monday this week, -current and -stable are in sync. > struct ip_fw has been extended and when the old ipfw(8) now tries to > add an entry it says, ip_fw_ctl: len=64, want 100 > > (hmm i havent looked but maybe the kernel part could be changed to > accept both versions?) Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to differentate between the two different syntaxes -- which of course, doesn't make any sense whatsoever :) As far as accepting both versions: getting the new kernel to accept the old struct would be fairly easy, the new ip_fw struct has some extensions and two new flags, all easily defaulted. Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?31D446BA.9BDE134>