From owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Sat Dec 1 18:20:15 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C61E1323FC0 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 18:20:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A5006F2BC for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 18:20:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 5D4781323FBB; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 18:20:14 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: pf@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC341323FBA for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 18:20:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF5EA6F2B8 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 18:20:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E3FB1E18A for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 18:20:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id wB1IKCX4059039 for ; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 18:20:12 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id wB1IKCGv059027 for pf@FreeBSD.org; Sat, 1 Dec 2018 18:20:12 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: pf@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 233581] Bugg in PF or in PF man-page? Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2018 18:20:13 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.2-STABLE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: peo_s@incedo.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Closed X-Bugzilla-Resolution: Works As Intended X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: pf@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 9A5006F2BC X-Spamd-Result: default: False [1.86 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.57)[0.567,0]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.78)[0.781,0]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.51)[0.511,0]; ASN(0.00)[asn:10310, ipnet:2001:1900:2254::/48, country:US] X-Rspamd-Server: mx1.freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2018 18:20:15 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D233581 --- Comment #4 from peos42 --- Hmmm >From man page regarding "set skip".... --snip-- List interfaces for which packets should not be filtered. Packets passing in or out on such interfaces are passed as if pf was disabled, i.e. pf does not process them in any way. --snip-- I think the text is clear in the man page... Packets are passed as if PF was disabled. It also states that PF should not process them in any way.=20 Two comments on this.. # 1 If a PF default block rule blocks traffic on lo0 for me when "set skip on l= o0" on active. Then PF *IS* processing packages which the man page clearly say = it should not! # 2 Lets assume you are right... Then the default block rule should also block 127.0.0.1 over lo0 so that as well have to be explicitly allowed. But it do= es not! So you comment.... Well... I do not agree. But please tell me if I misinter= pret something. /Peo --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=