Bug 50391
| Summary: | Incorrect information in a man | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Documentation | Reporter: | root <root> |
| Component: | Books & Articles | Assignee: | Ceri Davies <ceri> |
| Status: | Closed FIXED | ||
| Severity: | Affects Only Me | CC: | root |
| Priority: | Normal | ||
| Version: | Latest | ||
| Hardware: | Any | ||
| OS: | Any | ||
Greetings, Here is a patch for docs/50391 regarding ipfw.8 root@jpb-wks:/usr2/tmp/src/sbin/ipfw#cvs diff -u ipfw.8 Index: ipfw.8 =================================================================== RCS file: /usr3/FreeBSD/src/sbin/ipfw/ipfw.8,v retrieving revision 1.122 diff -u -r1.122 ipfw.8 --- ipfw.8 15 Mar 2003 01:13:00 -0000 1.122 +++ ipfw.8 5 May 2003 20:59:43 -0000 @@ -834,7 +834,8 @@ Matches IP packets whose destination port is one of the port(s) specified as argument. .It Cm established -Matches TCP packets that have the RST or ACK bits set. +Matches TCP packets that have the ACK bit (or +SYN + ACK bits during initial connection establishment) set. .It Cm frag Matches packets that are fragments and not the first fragment of an IP datagram. Note that these packets will not have Best Regards, jpb === Hi, I asked luigi@ to review this, here's his reply: ---- "ACK bit set" includes already "SYN + ACK bit set" so the change seems unnecessary. ---- What do you think? - Christian -- Christian Brueffer chris@unixpages.org brueffer@FreeBSD.org GPG Key: http://people.freebsd.org/~brueffer/brueffer.key.asc GPG Fingerprint: A5C8 2099 19FF AACA F41B B29B 6C76 178C A0ED 982D State Changed From-To: open->feedback Submitter has been asked for feedback. State Changed From-To: feedback->patched I committed a clarification to -HEAD. Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-doc->ceri My MFC reminder. State Changed From-To: patched->closed The commit was backed out in favour of the original, which it is felt is fine as it is. Thanks for your submission. |
In the man of ipfw command there are this information "established Matches TCP packets that have the RST or ACK bits set." I think it's wrong information because the established packets have ACK and SYN bits set. And I think a packet with the ACK and RST bits is a very strange notion. But I'm not a TCP/IP specialist. If it's me not understand the man, for adavance I'm very sorry. Thanks you very much for you attention and your faboulous works Fix: maybe some vi ;-)) How-To-Repeat: Juste type man ipfw