--- ip_fw.c.broken Sun Jul 20 01:30:35 1997
+++ ip_fw.c Sun Jul 20 01:33:48 1997
@@ -1191,7 +1191,7 @@
ntohl(i->fw_dst.s_addr),ntohl(i->fw_dmsk.s_addr),
(i->fw_vianame)[0] ? i->fw_vianame : "-",
ntohl(i->fw_via.s_addr),i->fw_flg);
- len+=sprintf(buffer+len,"%u %u %-9lu %-9lu",
+ len+=sprintf(buffer+len,"%u %u %-10lu %-10lu",
i->fw_nsp,i->fw_ndp, i->fw_pcnt,i->fw_bcnt);
for (p = 0; p < IP_FW_MAX_PORTS; p++)
len+=sprintf(buffer+len, " %u", i->fw_pts[p]);
I haven't tested it yet, but I plan to this week. %-9 just isn't wide
enough for lu. I can't imagine this diff does anything bad. Others have
tested it and declared it good.
[From a Jun 2 post by Jos Vos]
The problem with the /proc entries is known for long, I think (when will
this change, please...?), and this was the reason that we _tried_ to
make all entries having the same length. Unfortunately, as Alan and
some others already explained, the %-9lu for printf'ing the counters is
one char too small, so changing this to %-10lu will solve the problem.
Some people already reported that they haven't had any problems after
changing this.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will
Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message.
Florida Digital Turnpike |
________Finger jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______