From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 26 00:11:33 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 713E037B401 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:11:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.svzserv.kemerovo.su (mail.svzserv.kemerovo.su [213.184.65.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3616E4400D for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:11:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.pp.ru) Received: from main.svzserv.kemerovo.su (root@hq.svzserv.kemerovo.su [213.184.65.65])h5Q7BOPZ050540 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:11:25 +0800 (NKZS) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.pp.ru) Received: from grosbein.pp.ru (D00015.dialonly.kemerovo.su [213.184.66.105]) h5Q7BLSj087101 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:11:22 +0800 (NKZS) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.pp.ru) Received: from grosbein.pp.ru (smmsp@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grosbein.pp.ru (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5Q7BFrb000956 for ; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:11:15 +0800 (KRAST) (envelope-from eugen@grosbein.pp.ru) Received: (from eugen@localhost) by grosbein.pp.ru (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h5Q7A8Ni000935; Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:10:08 +0800 (KRAST) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:10:08 +0800 From: Eugene Grosbein To: =?koi8-r?Q?John_B=E4ckstrand?= Message-ID: <20030626151007.A877@grosbein.pp.ru> References: <000b01c33b7e$bc37fdd0$0000fea9@sandos> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <000b01c33b7e$bc37fdd0$0000fea9@sandos>; from sandos@home.se on Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 03:03:20AM +0200 cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mbuf Clusters on 4.8 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 07:11:33 -0000 > From this it sounds as it is a problem that should be > fixed, but it > obviously isnt in 4.8. Is this behaviour now considered > acceptable? And if > so, doesnt this make FreeBSD extremely easy to kill > using a simple > DOS-attack? Is this "fixed" in any way on 5.1? Afaik, this bug was recently fixed in both of HEAD and STABLE. Eugene