From owner-freebsd-current Sun Dec 15 10:55:58 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF1737B404; Sun, 15 Dec 2002 10:55:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [216.240.41.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE0B43EDA; Sun, 15 Dec 2002 10:55:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id gBFItsOM081647; Sun, 15 Dec 2002 10:55:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id gBFItsQ1081646; Sun, 15 Dec 2002 10:55:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 10:55:54 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <200212151855.gBFItsQ1081646@apollo.backplane.com> To: Anders Nordby Cc: "M. Warner Losh" , sam@errno.com, mux@FreeBSD.ORG, obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ipfw userland breaks again. References: <200212142351.gBENpBVH002931@apollo.backplane.com> <23f401c2a3ce$2a6e7e30$52557f42@errno.com> <200212150015.gBF0FlbS066547@apollo.backplane.com> <20021215.111441.05985858.imp@bsdimp.com> <200212151826.gBFIQMpo081407@apollo.backplane.com> <20021215185051.GA55072@totem.fix.no> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :How about sending the patch to the Technical Review Board, trb@ instead. : :Thanks. : :Cheers, : :-- :Anders. Getting bored sitting on your buns? It's already gone to core and, frankly, I think core is the proper forum now that Warner has declared it a security issue (when it obviously isn't. How easy is it to do an ipfw add 2 allow all from any to any? It's ludicrous to call it a security issue). I really don't mind people disagreeing, but I do mind it when people believe that the proper solution is for Matt Dillon to spend a man week fixing a major API that he didn't write instead of comitting an 8 line patch that deals with the issue well enough so sysads don't have to pull their hair out every time it happens. As I said before, I have no problem with the patch being removed once the API is fixed, but I am NOT the guy who should be rewriting the API and, frankly, it is inappropriate for anyone to suggest that I should be if they themselves are not willing to sit down in front of a keyboard and come up with a committable solution of their own. So far all I've heard are utterly trivial complaints from people who aren't willing to code up a solution themselves. -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message