Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:37:45 +0400 From: Sergey Matveychuk <sem@FreeBSD.org> To: net@freebsd.org Subject: ipfw does not eat its own output Message-ID: <46B1FA49.8060402@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
Hi.
I think quite many people met a situation when you want to save current
rules with 'ipfw list' command and use it as ipfw input afterwards?
(Yes, you should add a 'add' word before each line). But here we meet a
weird problem: 'ipfw list' outputs a wrong rule format sometime and you
can't use it without a modification.
The problem with 'to { ... or ... }' blocks. Let's see an example:
you add the rule:
ipfw add 100 allow tcp from { 10.10.10.1 or 10.10.10.2 } to { 10.10.10.3
or 10.10.10.4 or 10.10.10.5 }
adn it's showed as:
00100 allow tcp from { 10.10.10.1 or 10.10.10.2 } to { 10.10.10.3 or
dst-ip 10.10.10.4 or dst-ip 10.10.10.5 }
dst-ip words are wrong here. if you'll try to add the rule in this
format you get an error:
ipfw: missing ")"
I think it's a known and long standing problem.
(I've found it's introduced with the commit: Revision 1.11:
Mon Aug 19 04:52:15 2002 UTC (4 years, 11 months ago) by luigi )
After investigation I've found a strange assumption in
show_prerequisites() function. It looks wrong. So I think we can remove
it easily. It'll fix the problem. I've tried a lot of syntax variants
and I can't see something wrong in output after the modification.
Tell me if I wrong (with examples). The patch is bellow.
--
Dixi.
Sem.
[-- Attachment #2 --]
--- sbin/ipfw/ipfw2.c.orig Thu Aug 2 13:44:45 2007
+++ sbin/ipfw/ipfw2.c Thu Aug 2 15:17:44 2007
@@ -1394,9 +1394,6 @@
{
if (comment_only)
return;
- if ( (*flags & HAVE_IP) == HAVE_IP)
- *flags |= HAVE_OPTIONS;
-
if ( !(*flags & HAVE_OPTIONS)) {
if ( !(*flags & HAVE_PROTO) && (want & HAVE_PROTO))
if ( (*flags & HAVE_PROTO4))
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46B1FA49.8060402>