From owner-freebsd-stable Tue Dec 2 11:59:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA28238 for stable-outgoing; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 11:59:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable) Received: from mars.wexpress.com (drow@mars.wexpress.com [205.216.244.14]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA28224 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 11:59:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drow@chwest.org) Received: from localhost (drow@localhost) by mars.wexpress.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA14923; Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:57:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:57:41 -0500 (EST) From: Dan Jacobowitz X-Sender: drow@mars.wexpress.com To: Alex Nash cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipfw between kernel versions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Alex Nash wrote: > On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Dan Jacobowitz wrote: > > > I just attempted to upgrade a 2.2.2 machine to 2.2.5 kernel, and I ran > > into a little problem. As near as I have been able to tell, the ipfw > > ioctl's changed between the two, causing ipfw to fail and not put in place > > the allow all rules needed to counter the default policy - thus no > > network. > > > > Is my interpretation of this correct? Should I just install 2.2.5 ipfw? > > Installing 2.2.5 ipfw would be enough to fix the problem. But you're > better off remaking everything. I will - just want the kernel functional first. > > (I'm going to make installworld after I get the kernel in, but based on > > past experience I want to do those two seperately.) > > > > Will the 2.2.5 ipfw work with a 2.2.2 kernel at all? > > 2.2.5 ipfw will not work with 2.2.2-RELEASE kernels, but will work with > 2.2.2-STABLE after August 21st. What about /lkm/ipfw_mod.o? Should I upgrade the lkms immediately with kernel or wait until I make world? Does 2.2.5 ipfw use the lkm? It strikes me as a little odd that the lkms are not included in the kernel tree; wouldn't it make more sense to have perhaps /sys/lkm? I'm sure there's a good reason why not, but I don't see what it is. Alex, thank you for your help.