Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:10:01 GMT From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: freebsd-rc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/167566 Message-ID: <201210271810.q9RIA1QZ069213@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201210271810.q9RIA1QZ069213>