Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 05:50:55 +0900 From: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@mahoroba.org> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEAD ip_fw2 ipsec b0rked Message-ID: <ygeznf7ewcw.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0311071214190.653@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0311062137160.653@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> <001501c3a524$8bc40170$0235a8c0@raisa> <yge1xskfkta.wl%ume@mahoroba.org> <Pine.BSF.4.53.0311071214190.653@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
>>>>> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:26:12 +0000 (UTC)
>>>>> "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> said:
bzeeb-lists> Either removing the f() entirely will make people notice it at compile
bzeeb-lists> time that s.th. is missing
bzeeb-lists> or running a find over the src tree will let you find these functions
bzeeb-lists> but giving a panic() isn't that nice ;-))
I've just committed to nuke obsoleted ipsec_gethist().
However, since opt_ipsec.h is not included, IPsec code is not compiled
in. So, it cannot detect this case. ;)
bzeeb-lists> Perhaps Luigi or you culd review my patch and commit it so that both
bzeeb-lists> problems get fixed at ones because fixing one will not help making the
bzeeb-lists> other work in ip_fw2.c.
Since I dunno if it is intentional or not that it doesn't activate
IPsec code, I didn't change to include opt_ipsec.h. I believe best
person is Luigi.
Sincerely,
--
Hajimu UMEMOTO @ Internet Mutual Aid Society Yokohama, Japan
ume@mahoroba.org ume@bisd.hitachi.co.jp ume@{,jp.}FreeBSD.org
http://www.imasy.org/~ume/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ygeznf7ewcw.wl%ume>