Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:22:13 +0100 (CET) From: Goran Gajic <ggajic@afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.yu> To: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@www.freebsd.org Subject: Re: sio0: more interrupt-level buffer overflows Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0511191614460.27943@afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.yu> In-Reply-To: <4464qowuna.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> References: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0511182054480.7238@afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.yu> <4464qowuna.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > > Is there some reason you're using -9 instead of one of the signals > recommended by the pppd(8) documentation? I would expect SIGTERM, for > example, to close a lot more cleanly than SIGKILL... > I have tried but it makes no difference. Also, for some reason connection establishment: /usr/sbin/pppd connect "/usr/bin/chat -v -f /etc/ppp/pppscript" won't work on first attempt: Nov 19 16:14:39 pppd[593]: pppd 2.3.5 started by root, uid 0 Nov 19 16:14:40 pppd[593]: Connect script failed Nov 19 16:14:42 pppd[598]: pppd 2.3.5 started by root, uid 0 Nov 19 16:14:43 pppd[598]: Connect script failed Nov 19 16:14:45 pppd[603]: pppd 2.3.5 started by root, uid 0 Nov 19 16:14:48 pppd[603]: Connect: ppp0 <--> /dev/cuad0 I didn't see this oddity under RELENG_5_2_1 RELENG_5_3 and RELENG_5_4 but only under RELENG_6.0. Regards, gg.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.63.0511191614460.27943>