Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:54:13 +0300 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> To: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: RELENG_5 kernel b0rken with IPFIREWALL and without PFIL_HOOKS Message-ID: <20040819155413.GB82175@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <20040819154334.GA23926@pit.databus.com> References: <41249DEA.80404@portaone.com> <200408191300.i7JD0wvm006811@the-macgregors.org> <20040819154334.GA23926@pit.databus.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--SkvwRMAIpAhPCcCJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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? >=20 > Is it relevant that my /usr is on vinum, and the rules are in /usr/local/= etc? >=20 net.inet.ip.fw.enable is gone, and it upsets /etc/rc.d/ipfw. I asked Andre to follow up on this. Cheers, --=20 Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer --SkvwRMAIpAhPCcCJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBJM0lqRfpzJluFF4RAsLkAJ4iT52O8cLxlVaP7KOi8Fjy9fcj7wCfSQH1 Edlft12VDKPxnPNTBq+UVaQ= =LBo4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --SkvwRMAIpAhPCcCJ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040819155413.GB82175>