From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 19 16:04:46 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 5FFAE16A4CE; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:04:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pit.databus.com (p70-227.acedsl.com [66.114.70.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0009043D1D; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:04:45 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from barney@pit.databus.com) Received: from pit.databus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pit.databus.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id i7JG4joq030696; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:04:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from barney@pit.databus.com) Received: (from barney@localhost) by pit.databus.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id i7JG4jQE030695; Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:04:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from barney) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:04:45 -0400 From: Barney Wolff To: Ruslan Ermilov Message-ID: <20040819160445.GA29937@pit.databus.com> References: <41249DEA.80404@portaone.com> <200408191300.i7JD0wvm006811@the-macgregors.org> <20040819154334.GA23926@pit.databus.com> <20040819155413.GB82175@ip.net.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040819155413.GB82175@ip.net.ua> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.44 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 16:04:46 -0000 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.