conf/167566

[Chris Rees]

The following reply was made to PR conf/167566; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com>
To: bug-followup at freebsd.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: conf/167566
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:05:23 +0100

 On 27 October 2012 18:36, Hiroki Sato <hrs at freebsd.org> wrote:
 > Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com> wrote
 >   in <201210252030.q9PKU1sK001139 at freefall.freebsd.org>:
 >
 > ut> The following reply was made to PR conf/167566; it has been noted by GNATS.
 > ut>
 > ut> From: Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com>
 > ut> To: bug-followup at freebsd.org
 > ut> Cc:
 > ut> Subject: Re: conf/167566
 > ut> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:24:51 +0100
 > ut>
 > ut>  The correct fix would be to add REQUIRE: natd to ipfw.
 > ut>
 > ut>  http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/167566.diff
 > ut>
 > ut>  Please would someone take a look?
 >
 >  I think ipdivert module should be loaded in the ipfw script when
 >  natd_enable=YES because ipfw_nat is loaded in that way.  Can you (or
 >  anyone) test the patch at
 >  http://people.allbsd.org/~hrs/FreeBSD/ipfw.20121027-1.diff ?
 
 Looking at the situation more closely with your hint, how about making
 the required_modules only conditional on firewall_nat_enable?  If ipfw
 continues to run before nat then the checkyesno natd_enable is
 actually harmful because it makes us assume that the module is loaded,
 when it actually isn't yet.
 
 Chris
 
 http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/167566-1.diff