RELENG_5 kernel b0rken with IPFIREWALL and without PFIL_HOOKS

Ruslan Ermilov ru at
Thu Aug 19 08:54:20 PDT 2004

On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 11:43:34AM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote:
> I was inspired by the PFIL_HOOKS discussion to check my firewall rules :)
> There were none, other than 65535.  Apparently, /etc/rc.d/ipfw attempts
> to kldload ipfw, which will fail if ipfw is compiled into the kernel,
> and since the precmd failed, the _cmd will not be run.  When did it
> become mandatory to have ipfw as a module, not compiled in?  Is there
> some rationale for this?  It strikes me as rather dangerous, especially
> for firewalls, especially when default-to-accept is chosen.  Am I just
> confused, and missing some obvious bit of config?
> Is it relevant that my /usr is on vinum, and the rules are in /usr/local/etc?
net.inet.ip.fw.enable is gone, and it upsets /etc/rc.d/ipfw.
I asked Andre to follow up on this.

Ruslan Ermilov
ru at
FreeBSD committer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list