Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 12:41:47 +0400 (MSD) From: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru> To: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ipfw2 net.inet.ip.fw.verbose_limit broken Message-ID: <20040829123449.Y79110@mp2.macomnet.net> In-Reply-To: <20040817102003.P5098@mp2.macomnet.net> References: <20040817060556.GA7458@parodius.com> <20040817102003.P5098@mp2.macomnet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, 23:05-0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > > Just wanted to toss this one up here. Also, apologies for not > > cross-posting this to freebsd-ipfw, but I'm not on the list; although > > they seem to be aware of it: > > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/htdig/freebsd-ipfw/2004-July/001239.html > > > > Seems that ipfw2's support for net.inet.ip.fw.verbose_limit is, to > > put it bluntly, broken. This applies to both -STABLE and -CURRENT. > > The following PR has been sitting around for quite some time... > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=kern/46080 I have fixed this bug in -CURRENT and will MFC it in a week to RELENG_4 and RELENG_5 with the re@ approval. > > I've managed to confirm this still exists even as of an August 5th build > > of -CURRENT. Using `logamount' directives per rule works properly as > > a workaround. > > > > I've also looked at the patch, although I'm not sure about the performance > > implications of looking up a sysctl value per packet with a matching > > ipfw2 `log' directive. No, it works in a different way. There are max_log and log_left fields in ipfw_insn_log sructure associated with each ipfw rule. They are checked on every packet matches the rule. That is why a changing verbose_limit value does not affect the existent rules. -- Maxim Konovalov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040829123449.Y79110>