From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 17 17:30:04 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 751B4106566B for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:30:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648528FC18 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:30:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8HHU4XQ098586 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:30:04 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.2/8.14.1/Submit) id m8HHU4W1098583; Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:30:04 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:30:04 GMT Message-Id: <200809171730.m8HHU4W1098583@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.org From: Christian Peron Cc: Subject: Re: kern/127439: deadlock in pf X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Christian Peron List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:30:04 -0000 The following reply was made to PR kern/127439; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Christian Peron To: Christian Peron Cc: Geoffrey Mainland , FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/127439: deadlock in pf Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 12:27:43 -0500 Actually -- ignore this request. This is not the problem. On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:47:13AM -0500, Christian Peron wrote: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:21:15PM -0400, Geoffrey Mainland wrote: > [..] > > > > # FTP > > pass in on $ext_if inet proto tcp from any to $ext_nat \ > > user proxy flags S/SA modulate state > > > > What happens if you get rid of the "user proxy" constraint? We have > had problems with these rules in the past. The truth is, they don't > really work correctly anyway. But it would be interesting to see if > removing the "user proxy" constraint and replacing it with a port or > range removes the dead lock. >