From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Jun 28 13:52:53 1996 Return-Path: owner-stable Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA29289 for stable-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 13:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shogun.tdktca.com ([206.26.1.21]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA29281 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 13:52:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shogun.tdktca.com (daemon@localhost) by shogun.tdktca.com (8.7.2/8.7.2) with ESMTP id PAA09222 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 15:53:52 -0500 (CDT) Received: from orion.fa.tdktca.com ([163.49.131.130]) by shogun.tdktca.com (8.7.2/8.7.2) with SMTP id PAA09215 for ; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 15:53:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: from orion (alex@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by orion.fa.tdktca.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA13830; Fri, 28 Jun 1996 15:55:23 -0500 Message-ID: <31D446BA.9BDE134@fa.tdktca.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 15:55:22 -0500 From: Alex Nash Organization: TDK Factory Automation X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; Linux 1.2.13 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Juergen Lock CC: davidg@Root.COM, jhay@mikom.csir.co.za, stable@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ipfw (was: Re: lockups.) References: <199606281833.UAA01717@saturn.hb.north.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-stable@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Juergen Lock wrote: > > Alex Nash writes: > > > > just in case anyone else here sometimes boots older kernels... > > > or makes mistakes while updating remote :) > > > > Nifty trick, I like it. I just wanted to point out one thing: this > > is only necessary if you plan to boot kernels supped before Feb 23, > > not 0696. > > Umm you are thinking of -current maybe? :) or my -stable must have > had an, errm, interesting problem for quite a while now... > > actually no (thanks cvs :), looks like current is also affected: You mean -stable. Yes, as of Monday this week, -current and -stable are in sync. > struct ip_fw has been extended and when the old ipfw(8) now tries to > add an entry it says, ip_fw_ctl: len=64, want 100 > > (hmm i havent looked but maybe the kernel part could be changed to > accept both versions?) Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to differentate between the two different syntaxes -- which of course, doesn't make any sense whatsoever :) As far as accepting both versions: getting the new kernel to accept the old struct would be fairly easy, the new ip_fw struct has some extensions and two new flags, all easily defaulted. Alex