RELENG_5 kernel b0rken with IPFIREWALL and without PFIL_HOOKS
ru at freebsd.org
Thu Aug 19 09:37:18 PDT 2004
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 12:04:45PM -0400, Barney Wolff wrote:
> 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.
Yes sure. Non-existing sysctl causes kldload to be attempted,
that fails (because the module already exists), and the whole
/etc/rc.d/ipfw is aborted.
ru at FreeBSD.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20040819/fd6d19cc/attachment.bin
More information about the freebsd-current