From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 27 22:40:54 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D7F616A420 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:40:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sullrich@gmail.com) Received: from qproxy.gmail.com (qproxy.gmail.com [72.14.204.203]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D734143D48 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:40:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sullrich@gmail.com) Received: by qproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id a33so223807qbd for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:40:50 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=DG4mEfIsZ7ZNCqWZP12FlQ5mCitT7fcBMqRly7hQYv5vwyKqCTd+TTXGqesNJGVp+OSUGzXC7tfuEoqnxr0DLfGOSEiAy5l0W0fmgDfPHSCxJcNr7L4kBGJhUvvGr5zZQqBpuuJ6jgrh5AG3BKIWw9JcfK5lLftdrxQiD9EapEs= Received: by 10.65.15.20 with SMTP id s20mr276246qbi; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:40:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.184.1 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:40:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 18:40:50 -0400 From: Scott Ullrich To: Max Laier In-Reply-To: <200509280039.45668.max@love2party.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <200509280039.45668.max@love2party.net> Cc: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pfsync0 panic on bootup X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Scott Ullrich 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: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:40:54 -0000 On 9/27/05, Max Laier wrote: > Can you get me the line number for the instruction pointer? 0xc06f12cb (= ..eb > maybe)? A trace would also be helpful. The problem above was fixed with= the > patch as far as I hear. I'll compile a debugging kernel up and see. One interesting note is that we changed from syncif to syncdev and have rebooted atleast 50+ times and the problem seems to have disappeared. Should we use syncdev instead of syncif ? Scott