Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:52:30 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: RELENG_5 kernel b0rken with IPFIREWALL and without PFIL_HOOKS Message-ID: <200408191252.30593.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4124D2F0.8050000@theatre.msu.edu> References: <20040819154334.GA23926@pit.databus.com> <20040819161315.GB29937@pit.databus.com> <4124D2F0.8050000@theatre.msu.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday 19 August 2004 12:18 pm, Jonathan T. Sage wrote:
> Barney Wolff wrote:
> > Sure, invoking ipfw directly works fine when ipfw's compiled into the
> > kernel, as does dotting /etc/rc.firewall. But /etc/rc.d/ipfw is what's
> > run at boot time, and that would seem, at least as I read it, to require
> > that ipfw be a module, not compiled in.
>
> no, it dosn't, kinda.
>
> if ! ${SYSCTL} net.inet.ip.fw.enable > /dev/null 2>&1; then
>
> if the sysctl item net.inet.ip.fw.enable does NOT exist, then try and
> load the module. otherwise, return 0 (all ok)
>
> if ! kldload ipfw; then
> warn unable to load firewall module.
> return 1
> fi
> fi
>
> it is failing because the net.inet.ip.fw.enable sysctl was removed. the
> script needs to be updated to rely on one of the still existing sysctls.
> as of right now, with no edits, the script cannot complete succesfully
> unless ipfw is left as a module. No doubt this will be fixed shortly.
Does it work ok if you change it to be 'net.inet.ip.fw'?
--
John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200408191252.30593.jhb>