Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:53:33 +0200 (CEST) From: Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, joao@matik.com.br Subject: Re: ipfw add pipe broken? Message-ID: <200704030853.l338rXZD050252@lurza.secnetix.de> In-Reply-To: <200704011255.49740.joao@matik.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
JoaoBR <joao@matik.com.br> wrote: > On Sunday 01 April 2007 12:04, Mike Tancsa wrote: > > At 10:07 AM 4/1/2007, JoaoBR wrote: > > > it seems I can not add pipes with releng6 sources from the last days > > > > > > ipfw add pipe 1 ip from any to any > > > ipfw: getsockopt(IP_FW_ADD): Invalid argument > > > > > > or any similar add pipe command does not work > > > (sure I have options DUMMYNET in > > > kernel) > > > > > > world and kernel from march 29 works still fine > > > > > > anything changed? > > > > There were a bunch of MFCs. When I try from a kernel today, > > seems the thing happened on saturday > > by all respect to Julians work but with ipfw broken and sunday fucked up ... > > kind of scaring when seeing "I have no time to check, I do it on tuesday" > or "I need to do the userland ipfw too to add some new features, but, not > today.." Well, FreeBSD is mostly a volunteer project, so people work on it when they have time. Admittedly, you're right that any changes should be tested. But in reality it's not always that easy. Some changes are complex so that not all possible things can be tested. And some changes _seem_ trivial and obviously don't need to be tested (especially if a nearly identical change ran for months in -current), but then that might turn out to be a mistake. Errare humanum est. (Translation: shit happens.) > please do it all or don't do it, ipfw is an mature and essential part where we > do not espect such sudden surprises in releng6 to happen First, if you absolutely don't want surprises, then you should run RELENG_6_2, not RELENG_6. If you run RELENG_6, you should be prepared and able to deal with breakages. (Even if it's unusual that RELENG_x breaks, it does happen sometimes. The FreeBSD Handbook chapter "staying stable" contains appropriate warnings.) And second, it's not a big deal to go back to Friday's sources until Julian had time to fix the issue, is it? Best regards Oliver PS: Right now I'm much more concerned with the security issue of the "file" utility. FreeBSD's version of file(1) in the base system seems to be vulnerable to the recently discovered (~ 2 weeks ago) issue, as far as I can tell. -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.'
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200704030853.l338rXZD050252>