Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 2 Dec 1997 14:57:41 -0500 (EST)
From:      Dan Jacobowitz  <drow@chwest.org>
To:        Alex Nash <nash@Mcs.Net>
Cc:        freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: ipfw between kernel versions
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.95LJ1.1b3.971202145526.14921A-100000@mars.wexpress.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971202115421.6051F-100000@Venus.mcs.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Alex Nash wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Dan Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> > I just attempted to upgrade a 2.2.2 machine to 2.2.5 kernel, and I ran
> > into a little problem.  As near as I have been able to tell, the ipfw
> > ioctl's changed between the two, causing ipfw to fail and not put in place
> > the allow all rules needed to counter the default policy - thus no
> > network.
> > 
> > Is my interpretation of this correct?  Should I just install 2.2.5 ipfw?
> 
> Installing 2.2.5 ipfw would be enough to fix the problem.  But you're
> better off remaking everything.

I will - just want the kernel functional first.
 
> > (I'm going to make installworld after I get the kernel in, but based on
> > past experience I want to do those two seperately.)
> > 
> > Will the 2.2.5 ipfw work with a 2.2.2 kernel at all?
> 
> 2.2.5 ipfw will not work with 2.2.2-RELEASE kernels, but will work with
> 2.2.2-STABLE after August 21st.

What about /lkm/ipfw_mod.o?  Should I upgrade the lkms immediately with
kernel or wait until I make world?  Does 2.2.5 ipfw use the lkm?

It strikes me as a little odd that the lkms are not included in the kernel
tree;  wouldn't it make more sense to have perhaps /sys/lkm?  I'm sure
there's a good reason why not, but I don't see what it is.


Alex, thank you for your help.





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95LJ1.1b3.971202145526.14921A-100000>