Re: Experiments with npf on -current

[Darren Reed <darrenr%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On 24/11/2011 12:13 AM, Zoltan Arnold NAGY wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Jeremy C. Reed 
> <reed%reedmedia.net@localhost> wrote:
>>> interest of progress.Remember that this is -CURRENT, where things like
>>> this are *supposed* to happen?
>>
>>
>> As for me, I was glad Darren pointed this out. (In fact, I was quite
>> surprised when I read the followup acknowledging known buggy code living
>> in -current.)
> [...]
>> We should suggest and even force that code known to be broken to be
>> reverted. (Well I think this is already true, but not happening?) (It
>> will be easier when we have a better revision control so many can work
>> easier on branches.)
> 
> When I committed the code, I did test it with both v4 and v6. Apart from the 
> TCP
> state engine bugs, I did not encounter any issues, that's why the commit.
> 
> Sorry if it got thru. I'll work with rmind@ on the weekend to fix these.

Let me summarise the email to which I responded to for the benefit
of yourself and others in a single sentence:

"The IPv6 merge introduced numerous security bugs."

Exactly what testing was done prior to the merge and how was it done?

Did anyone review these changes or the state of the testing?

Were there people behind the scenes telling you to "get it in",
regardless of the condition of the code?

Darren