From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 19 15:54:20 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477C116A4CE for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:54:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from tigra.ip.net.ua (tigra.ip.net.ua [82.193.96.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EA7443D3F for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:54:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ru@ip.net.ua) Received: from heffalump.ip.net.ua (heffalump.ip.net.ua [82.193.96.213]) by tigra.ip.net.ua (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7JFsCqM032562 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:54:13 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from ru@ip.net.ua) Received: (from ru@localhost) by heffalump.ip.net.ua (8.13.1/8.13.1) id i7JFsDvI000163; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:54:13 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from ru) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 18:54:13 +0300 From: Ruslan Ermilov To: Barney Wolff Message-ID: <20040819155413.GB82175@ip.net.ua> References: <41249DEA.80404@portaone.com> <200408191300.i7JD0wvm006811@the-macgregors.org> <20040819154334.GA23926@pit.databus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="SkvwRMAIpAhPCcCJ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040819154334.GA23926@pit.databus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: RELENG_5 kernel b0rken with IPFIREWALL and without PFIL_HOOKS X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:54:20 -0000 --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--