From owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Oct 27 18:10:01 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-rc@hub.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E840ADE
 for <freebsd-rc@hub.freebsd.org>; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:10:01 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.135])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46D198FC12
 for <freebsd-rc@hub.freebsd.org>; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:10:01 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9RIA1g9069214
 for <freebsd-rc@freefall.freebsd.org>; Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:10:01 GMT
 (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
 by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q9RIA1QZ069213;
 Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:10:01 GMT (envelope-from gnats)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:10:01 GMT
Message-Id: <201210271810.q9RIA1QZ069213@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org
Cc: 
From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: conf/167566
X-BeenThere: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>
List-Id: "Discussion related to /etc/rc.d design and implementation."
 <freebsd-rc.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-rc>,
 <mailto:freebsd-rc-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-rc>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-rc@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-rc-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-rc>,
 <mailto:freebsd-rc-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:10:01 -0000

The following reply was made to PR conf/167566; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>
To: bug-followup@freebsd.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: conf/167566
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:05:23 +0100

 On 27 October 2012 18:36, Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> wrote:
 > Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote
 >   in <201210252030.q9PKU1sK001139@freefall.freebsd.org>:
 >
 > ut> The following reply was made to PR conf/167566; it has been noted by GNATS.
 > ut>
 > ut> From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>
 > ut> To: bug-followup@freebsd.org
 > ut> Cc:
 > ut> Subject: Re: conf/167566
 > ut> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:24:51 +0100
 > ut>
 > ut>  The correct fix would be to add REQUIRE: natd to ipfw.
 > ut>
 > ut>  http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/167566.diff
 > ut>
 > ut>  Please would someone take a look?
 >
 >  I think ipdivert module should be loaded in the ipfw script when
 >  natd_enable=YES because ipfw_nat is loaded in that way.  Can you (or
 >  anyone) test the patch at
 >  http://people.allbsd.org/~hrs/FreeBSD/ipfw.20121027-1.diff ?
 
 Looking at the situation more closely with your hint, how about making
 the required_modules only conditional on firewall_nat_enable?  If ipfw
 continues to run before nat then the checkyesno natd_enable is
 actually harmful because it makes us assume that the module is loaded,
 when it actually isn't yet.
 
 Chris
 
 http://www.bayofrum.net/~crees/patches/167566-1.diff