RELENG_5 kernel b0rken with IPFIREWALL and without PFIL_HOOKS
barney at databus.com
Thu Aug 19 09:04:46 PDT 2004
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 06:54:13PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> 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.
Yes, but aside from that, ipfw_precmd returns 1 if the kldload fails,
which if I'm not confused causes ipfw_start not to be run. At least
that's what my system as of 8/17/04 says.
Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf
I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.
More information about the freebsd-current