Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:08:22 -0700 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> To: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r353635 - in head/sys: netinet netinet6 Message-ID: <20191017150822.GY4086@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <138998a2-b304-fbe3-065d-e1df0a09af14@selasky.org> References: <201910160911.x9G9BonH076337@repo.freebsd.org> <20191016165722.GU4086@FreeBSD.org> <138998a2-b304-fbe3-065d-e1df0a09af14@selasky.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:46:44PM +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: H> > as far as I remember I was against this changeset and I had H> > several other developers agreed that this should be fixed in H> > different way. Why did you proceed with checking it in? :( H> H> Hi Gleb, H> H> This issue has been discussed in-depth at various transport meetings and H> we have agreed on a solution. Is the list of people who agreed longer than "Reviewed by" list? H> Are you seeing something broken as of this patch? As I already explained, first, we are dropping absolutely legitimate packets. At the time of arrival there were nothing wrong about them. This is idelogically wrong from viewpoint of abstract network stack. Second, the problem should be fixed in a different way: when we put packets on the queue, we should take all important values out of the ifnet and store them on queue entry. -- Gleb Smirnoff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20191017150822.GY4086>