From owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Wed Aug 10 17:41:43 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAAEBBB51E7 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:41:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AB7218DE for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:41:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u7AHfg9f041948 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:41:43 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 211730] pf uses 32bit value for bandwith with altq Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:41:43 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.3-RELEASE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: kp@freebsd.org X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list 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, 10 Aug 2016 17:41:43 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D211730 --- Comment #6 from Kristof Provost --- (In reply to Mahdi Mokhtari from comment #4) The problem with the ABI is that we can't rely on user space and kernel spa= ce running the same code versions. If someone were to update the kernel, but n= ot the user space code (I don't think we support the reverse) they'd disagree about the size of the bandwidth fields and things would break. It'll likely be best to have two versions of the ioctl() command, one which implements the old 32-bit behaviour (on the same ID as before!), and a new = one which implements the new 64-bit values. That'd have to be supported for a bit, but hopefully it can be removed eventually. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=