From owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org  Tue Jun  6 21:22:19 2017
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA4C6BF542C
 for <freebsd-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Tue,  6 Jun 2017 21:22:19 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 982AA7BB3C
 for <freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org>; Tue,  6 Jun 2017 21:22:19 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118])
 by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v56LMJGX047036
 for <freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:22:19 GMT
 (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org)
From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject: [Bug 219815] ipfw stops working when more than one tables is used
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 21:22:19 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System
X-Bugzilla-Component: kern
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.3-RELEASE
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People
X-Bugzilla-Who: ae@FreeBSD.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: New
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: ---
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-219815-8-tDxKmFJMhh@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-219815-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-219815-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
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-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bug reports <freebsd-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-bugs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 21:22:19 -0000

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D219815

--- Comment #3 from Andrey V. Elsukov <ae@FreeBSD.org> ---
(In reply to ecsd from comment #2)
> I am glad to hear there are not volume restrictions, but I fail to see wh=
at
> logging has to do with rules failing to fire when traffic that would trig=
ger
> them is known for a certainty to have entered the machine. I could say "l=
og
> deny" but if the rule never fires, then - ? And this issue asks what is
> wrong that adding as much as a 2nd table to the mix causes the firewall to
> start failing past the point (sequence number) where the 2nd table refere=
nce
> is made.

You can add `log` action to the `allow` rules. I suspect your first `allow`
rules do match the packets that you want to be matched by `deny` rules.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.=