From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Mon Aug 1 15:43:29 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B5EBBAB66D; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 15:43:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Received: from sola.nimnet.asn.au (paqi.nimnet.asn.au [115.70.110.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 034F71CDF; Mon, 1 Aug 2016 15:43:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sola.nimnet.asn.au (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id u71FhMKT053932; Tue, 2 Aug 2016 01:43:22 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from smithi@nimnet.asn.au) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 01:43:22 +1000 (EST) From: Ian Smith To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" cc: Kevin Oberman , freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List Subject: Re: Significant missing item in 11.0 release notes In-Reply-To: <3b44dbc7-95c9-b529-c1a4-47a4af0774cf@yandex.ru> Message-ID: <20160802012633.X29054@sola.nimnet.asn.au> References: <3b44dbc7-95c9-b529-c1a4-47a4af0774cf@yandex.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-ID: <20160802012633.R29054@sola.nimnet.asn.au> X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 15:43:29 -0000 On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 16:39:45 +0300, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > On 31.07.16 22:28, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > I assumed that I had missed this in the release notes, but I can find no > > reference to this significant change that simultaneously greatly enhanced > > ipfw table functionality, but also broke my configuration. While the fix > > was trivial, if the Release Notes had addressed this, I would not have had > > the problem in the first place. > > I fixed this in r303615. Thanks for the report! Fast work Andrey, and sorry for rushing in. I ASSumed, after reading the new tables section in 11.0-R ipfw(8), that Kevin had run into: Tables require explicit creation via create before use. but diving - not too deeply - into the log of /head/sbin/ipfw/tables.c from your commit, I think that statement must be out of date, at least regarding existing ruleset table configuration? Is that right? cheers, Ian