Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:00:25 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 226850] [pf] Matching but failed rules block without return Message-ID: <bug-226850-17777-hoEMF2OrRK@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-226850-17777@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-226850-17777@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D226850 --- Comment #2 from vegeta@tuxpowered.net --- I'm sorry but I did not bother to check OpenBSD syntax. Isn't FreeBSD diver= ted beyond the point of caring about it anyway? There are other ways to handle this without changing rule syntax, but then = it would not be tunable per rule: 1. have all "pass" rules always return if they fail 2. add new pf.conf "set" option 3. follow global "set block-policy" option Option 3 is the least invasive one but is not a solution for my particular issue - I want the firewall to silently drop packets when there is no match= ing rule but be verbose when a rule fails. I will prepare a patch for solution 2. That would mean no change in rule syntax, no change in default behaviour and possibility to enable this fix if anybody finds this to be a bug for them too. To be honest doing it this way also means I can easily implement it in my environment. The patch I prepared yesterday would require me to change how rules are generated depending on FreeBSD release and kernel patch level. Single change in pf.conf is way eas= ier to do as I create the resulting pf.conf from multiple files coming from different sources. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-226850-17777-hoEMF2OrRK>