Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:04:45 -0400 From: Barney Wolff <barney@databus.com> To: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: RELENG_5 kernel b0rken with IPFIREWALL and without PFIL_HOOKS Message-ID: <20040819160445.GA29937@pit.databus.com> In-Reply-To: <20040819155413.GB82175@ip.net.ua> References: <41249DEA.80404@portaone.com> <200408191300.i7JD0wvm006811@the-macgregors.org> <20040819154334.GA23926@pit.databus.com> <20040819155413.GB82175@ip.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 06:54:13PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > 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? > > > > Is it relevant that my /usr is on vinum, and the rules are in /usr/local/etc? > > > net.inet.ip.fw.enable is gone, and it upsets /etc/rc.d/ipfw. > I asked Andre to follow up on this. Yes, but aside from that, ipfw_precmd returns 1 if the kldload fails, which if I'm not confused causes ipfw_start not to be run. At least that's what my system as of 8/17/04 says. Barney -- Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040819160445.GA29937>