Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:30:50 -0400 From: "JJB" <Barbish3@adelphia.net> To: "David Syphers" <dsyphers@u.washington.edu>, <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: 5.3 & ipfilter Message-ID: <MIEPLLIBMLEEABPDBIEGKENGGKAA.Barbish3@adelphia.net> In-Reply-To: <200409071738.19710.dsyphers@u.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org wrote: > On Tuesday 07 September 2004 05:03 pm, fbsd_user wrote: >> Is there still a loadable module that gets auto loaded at boot time >> when rc.conf contains the ipfilter_enable="YES" statement like in >> 4.10? > > ipfilter_enable is still an option in rc.conf. > >> Will the final stable version still need kernel option PFIL_HOOKS >> added to the other ipfilter kernel options to compile ipfilter into >> the kernel like in the 5.2 and 5.2.1 development versions or will >> 5.3 return to the way 4.10 worked (IE no PFIL_HOOKS option needed)? > > I'm not sure, but 5.3-BETA3 does require PFIL_HOOKS. The change made > to -CURRENT to always include PFIL_HOOKS (and thus remove it as a > kernel option) was made after RELENG_5 was branched, and the commit > log doesn't mention merging that change to RELENG_5. > > -David David Thanks for your reply. But you did not answer my first question. I did not ask if ipfilter_enable="YES" was still valid in 5.3, but if the ipfilter bootable module is still included in 5.3 and auto loaded by the ipfilter_enable="YES" in rc.conf? Since 5.3 is currently going through the weekly testing cycle as prep for becoming stable I would think this is the appropriate time to submit a 5.3 bug report to change the default kernel source so it contains the PFIL_HOOKS.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?MIEPLLIBMLEEABPDBIEGKENGGKAA.Barbish3>