From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 11 10:02:55 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB6B2106564A; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:02:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ianf@clue.co.za) Received: from zcs03.jnb1.cloudseed.co.za (zcs03.jnb1.cloudseed.co.za [41.154.0.139]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34C088FC15; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:02:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zcs03.jnb1.cloudseed.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87E6C2B42A53; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:56:05 +0200 (SAST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zcs03.jnb1.cloudseed.co.za Received: from zcs03.jnb1.cloudseed.co.za ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zcs03.jnb1.cloudseed.co.za [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L3vjnksXhhWm; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:56:05 +0200 (SAST) Received: from clue.co.za (unknown [41.154.88.19]) by zcs03.jnb1.cloudseed.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D42612B42A52; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:56:04 +0200 (SAST) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=clue.co.za) by clue.co.za with esmtp (Exim 4.76 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1T08QN-0000S9-H1; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:56:03 +0200 To: Gleb Smirnoff From: Ian FREISLICH In-Reply-To: <20120809114130.GC20560@FreeBSD.org> References: <20120809114130.GC20560@FreeBSD.org> <501D52AD.4010105@protected-networks.net> X-Attribution: BOFH Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:56:03 +0200 Message-Id: Cc: Garrett Cooper , current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Speaking of ship blockers for 9.... X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:02:55 -0000 Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > Let me give you link to my branch of pf: > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf/2012-June/006643.html > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf/2012-June/006662.html > > In that branch the code that puts the "reverse" pointer on state keys, > as well as the m_addr_changed() function and the pf_compare_state_keys() > had been cut away. > > So, this exact bug definitely can't be reproduced there. However, others > may hide in :) Thanks. I'll be able to work on this next week. My system is pretty similar to yours - 16 cores, full BGP RIB, 20+ VLANs + CARP on 4*bce(4), PF+Sync, 400k+ states, NAT, tables, anchors etc. The complication is that the production system is on 8 and the pfsync is incompatible with 9 and CURRENT. And, 9/CURRENT is unuseable for me as a backup without this fix because of the state mismatch rate. Ian -- Ian Freislich