From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun 27 04:46:49 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0213437B401
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>;
	Fri, 27 Jun 2003 04:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp1.home.se (smtp1.home.se [213.214.194.101])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0878843F75
	for <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>;
	Fri, 27 Jun 2003 04:46:48 -0700 (PDT)	(envelope-from sandos@home.se)
Received: from sandos sandos@home.se [130.243.95.28]Novell NetWare;
	Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:45:48 +0200
Message-ID: <005901c33ca1$cf3e8c90$0000fea9@sandos>
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?John_B=E4ckstrand?= <sandos@home.se>
To: "Eugene Grosbein" <eugen@grosbein.pp.ru>
References: <000b01c33b7e$bc37fdd0$0000fea9@sandos>
	<20030626151007.A877@grosbein.pp.ru>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:46:55 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Mbuf Clusters on 4.8
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code
	<freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 11:46:49 -0000

> > From this it sounds as it is a problem that should
be
> > fixed, but it
> > obviously isnt in 4.8. Is this behaviour now
considered
> > acceptable? And if
> > so, doesnt this make FreeBSD extremely easy to kill
> > using a simple
> > DOS-attack? Is this "fixed" in any way on 5.1?
>
> Afaik, this bug was recently fixed in both of HEAD
and STABLE.
>
> Eugene

Indeed, I upgraded my system and it now works as
advertised: If I use up too much resources, netowork
connectivity is lost, but once I disconnect those
connections, it comes back. (it even stops responding
to pings =)

---
John Bäckstrand