From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Sat Jul 20 12:02:16 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B158EBC822 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:02:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9096F77BE9 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:02:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 902C8BC821; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:02:16 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: net@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FDAEBC820 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:02:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A8D177BE7 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:02:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 407699C7A for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:02:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x6KC2GeX064734 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:02:16 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x6KC2GLf064724 for net@FreeBSD.org; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:02:16 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: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 238796] ipfilter: failure to detect the same rules when arguments ordered differently Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:02:15 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: kern X-Bugzilla-Version: CURRENT X-Bugzilla-Keywords: patch X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: msl0000023508@gmail.com X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: cy@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: 9096F77BE9 X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.98 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.98)[-0.983,0]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11403, ipnet:2610:1c1:1::/48, country:US]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0] X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 12:02:16 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D238796 --- Comment #30 from WHR --- (In reply to Cy Schubert from comment #29) I think this because your patch (attachment 205851) only fixed comparing indexes in 'fr_ifnames', but not indexes in 'fr_tifs' and 'fr_dif'. The order of strings in 'fr_names' doesn't necessary be identical between 2 rule objects that representing same rule; for example the argument for keyw= ard 'on' and 'reply-to' both stored in 'fr_names', but the offsets may differ between 2 objects. The correct comparison should at first check the index numbers in 'fr_tifs'= and 'fr_dif', then compare the actual strings referenced by the indexes, in each rule objects, not the indexes itself. And in you last patch, function ipf_ifnames_cmp: > if ((!fr1->fr_ifnames[i] && !fr2->fr_ifnames[i]) || Testing for 0 is incorrect; shouldn't the invalid index be -1? > rc =3D 1; Why not simply 'return 1;' when a difference is already found? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=