User Details
- User Since
- Jun 4 2014, 7:25 AM (496 w, 5 d)
Today
Tue, Nov 21
Tue, Nov 14
Nov 1 2023
Oct 30 2023
Oct 17 2023
Looks similar to what linux does.
Sep 14 2023
Sep 13 2023
Sep 4 2023
Sep 1 2023
Aug 8 2023
Aug 3 2023
Aug 2 2023
Jul 24 2023
Jul 11 2023
I don't like adding extra printfs on fast path processing. This can easily make your system unresponsive.
Jun 28 2023
Jun 27 2023
I think previous logic was correct and derived from code before IPsec overhaul.
Jun 25 2023
Jun 7 2023
Jun 5 2023
May 29 2023
LGTM. Do you plan to implement NAT_T_FRAG in kernel somehow?
Apr 3 2023
LGTM.
Jan 23 2023
Jan 22 2023
Jan 18 2023
Jan 17 2023
Jan 10 2023
we can't recover why would we ever have identical 4-tuples in the hash
Dec 20 2022
Nov 28 2022
Nov 17 2022
Nov 10 2022
Oct 6 2022
Sep 21 2022
Sep 16 2022
I'll try to read the patch more carefully this weekend.
Sep 13 2022
Thanks, the patch is correct.
But I think we need rework the code to avoid such problem in future, or maybe add some comment, or add inline function like this:
Aug 22 2022
Can you take a look at the errata for 82599 that does report checksum error when card receives IPv4 UDP packets with zero checksum?
I found several discussion (on Opensense and FreeBSD forums) about this problem that appeared visible after this commit. Also, I found this PR. In our case we see noticeable RX errors on machines that handle SNMP traps.
Aug 17 2022
Aug 15 2022
Do you plan add similar support for IPv6? There is ICMP6_PACKET_TOO_BIG with the same meaning. But actually it is not unreach message, thus I'm not sure we should do it.
Jul 14 2022
Jul 7 2022
Good explanation. It would be nice to have something similar somewhere in comments.
Jun 9 2022
Superseded by D30398.
Jun 4 2022
May 19 2022
Apr 18 2022
Apr 11 2022
Apr 6 2022
Apr 4 2022
Apr 1 2022
Mar 2 2022
There are several comments that don't match our style. Those, that are like:
Feb 18 2022
Jan 24 2022
I think you can go through using of some sysctl/tunable first.
I.e. by default system will use old behavior, but you can change it for your system.
Dec 14 2021
I have no objection. Just a question. What is the reason behind the accepting of non-signed packets on the socket that we explicitly marked that it must use signatures?
I think this will lead to hiding misconfigurations from the user.
Dec 13 2021
I think the patch needs to be updated to reflect epoch related changes in the vlan code.
We use this patch. But I did not checked is it applicable to recent CURRENT or not.
Dec 2 2021
Nov 24 2021
This looks like leftover from D31271.