From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 11 22:38:27 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C1A416A419 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:38:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from emaste@phaedrus.sandvine.ca) Received: from gw.sandvine.com (gw.sandvine.com [199.243.201.138]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F29913C47E for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:38:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from emaste@phaedrus.sandvine.ca) Received: from labgw2.phaedrus.sandvine.com ([192.168.3.11]) by gw.sandvine.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:26:15 -0400 Received: by labgw2.phaedrus.sandvine.com (Postfix, from userid 12627) id E177311706; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:26:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:26:14 -0400 From: Ed Maste To: Jack Vogel Message-ID: <20070911222614.GA36962@sandvine.com> References: <200707130848.01101.jhb@freebsd.org> <2a41acea0707130921x38d35d3br62842ef118c93261@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2a41acea0707130921x38d35d3br62842ef118c93261@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Sep 2007 22:26:15.0134 (UTC) FILETIME=[C3EE0FE0:01C7F4C2] Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: em0 hijacking traffic to port 623 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: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:38:27 -0000 On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 09:21:53AM -0700, Jack Vogel wrote: > >> > > On Mon, 21 May 2007, Ian FREISLICH wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Hi > >> > > > > >> > > > We've noticed an issue on our firewalls where the first em device > >> > > > in the system hijacks inbound port 623 tcp and udp. The OS never > >> > > > sees this traffic. [patch omitted] > Hardcoding this change into shared code is not the right place > to do it, however I'll take a look at that and figure out a more > appropriate approach. > > Jack Jack, do you have any update on adding a sysctl etc. to configure the management port hijacking? I was just bitten by the same problem and am going to just hardcode ~(E1000_MANC_RMCP_EN | E1000_MANC_0298_EN) for now but would like to switch to the fix that will actually end up in the driver. - Ed