[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: PR/44070 CVS commit: src/sys/dist/ipf/netinet
The following reply was made to PR kern/44070; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: christos%zoulas.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)
To: List Mail User <track%Plectere.com@localhost>,
Subject: Re: PR/44070 CVS commit: src/sys/dist/ipf/netinet
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:24:18 -0500
On Feb 12, 10:48am, track%Plectere.com@localhost (List Mail User) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: PR/44070 CVS commit: src/sys/dist/ipf/netinet
| Hi again,
| Actually, the change in 1.42 is unfortunately not correct:
| The problem is that the syntax for minimum and maximum ports is
| _inclusive_ of the endpoint values, therefore any value between
| OR either if bth of the minimum and maximum port values should be
| possible; The change in rev 1.42 does fix the original problem _I_
| had (i.e. when minimum == maximum to force a single port to be used),
| but the "fix" in 1.42 has a side effect that the maximum port number
| cannot be used for any specification larger than a single port - i.e.
| a rule like "... 167:168" will only use port 167 and can never use 168
| (this seems the "worst" case to me: A single "fallback" is allowed for
| rare collisions, but doesn't have any effect/functionality because of
| the logic error).
| Of well, the panic is gone, so I can safely allow any of my
| local changes to bit-rot, but a (new/related) bug still remains :-(
Fixed :-) Neither was the patch though because it was possible to
crash the kernel.
Main Index |
Thread Index |