Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 23:11:14 -0400 From: abe <abe@informationwave.net> To: Bill Fumerola <billf@mu.org> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fatal trap 12 kernel panic Message-ID: <20021011031114.GA60607@dipole.informationwave.net> In-Reply-To: <20021011030207.GN80284@elvis.mu.org> References: <20021010212954.GA67855@dipole.informationwave.net> <3DA5F3BC.CD0154CF@mindspring.com> <20021010214518.GB71656@dipole.informationwave.net> <3DA5FCD2.B23CD912@mindspring.com> <20021010222545.GA82461@dipole.informationwave.net> <3DA60447.4C66C85@mindspring.com> <20021010232416.GA97757@dipole.informationwave.net> <3DA6332C.CDC30B95@mindspring.com> <20021011030207.GN80284@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bill,
Any hint as to what seems to be going on here and maybe a clue
to a possible solution?
Regards,
Abe
On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 08:02:07PM -0700, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 07:10:52PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> > Not to be emphatic, or anything, but IPFW has to be static. There
> > is voodoo you can use to make it know about loaded modules, but I'll
> > be damned if I know what it is (again, I refer you to the handbook).
> > 8-).
>
> nope. ipfw doesn't have to be static. ipfw+ipdivert has to be static.
> up until a while ago, ipfw+dummynet and ipfw+bridge had to be static,
> but that was fixed and MFC'd. ipfw by itself (which includes the dynamic
> rules) can be static or kldload'd.
>
> --
> - bill fumerola / fumerola@yahoo-inc.com / billf@FreeBSD.org / billf@mu.org
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021011031114.GA60607>