Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:55:04 +0300 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> To: Andre Oppermann <andre@FreeBSD.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: ipfw2 broken Message-ID: <20040819175504.GC44018@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <4124E1DA.B5341C04@freebsd.org> References: <1092881027.999.3.camel@server.mcneil.com> <412497B5.6040203@freebsd.org> <4124D1D4.5080307@samsco.org> <200408191251.32319.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <4124E1DA.B5341C04@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--TYecfFk8j8mZq+dy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 07:22:34PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > >=20 > > On Thursday 19 August 2004 12:14 pm, Scott Long wrote: > > > Andre Oppermann wrote: > > > > Sean McNeil wrote: > > > >> How do I get the ipfw2 module to compile with divert? It doesn't > > > >> recognize the following in my config file when building the module: > > > >> > > > >> options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD > > > >> options IPDIVERT > > > >> > > > >> Also, the /etc/rc.d/ipfw script is looking for an invalid sysctl v= ar: > > > >> > > > >> net.inet.ip.fw.enable > > > >> > > > >> and it will fail if I have the IPFIREWALL option which compiles th= e code > > > >> into the kernel because it will try to load and return 1 on a fail= ure. > > > > > > > > I'm looking into it and will have a fix later today. > > > > > > This, and all of the rc.d, module loading, and kernel option problems > > > are now a blocking issue for BETA1. We had planned to start the BETA1 > > > no later than 2200 UTC today. What is your schedule for getting all = of > > > this fixed? > >=20 > > It looks like fixing the rc.d script is simply a matter of checking for= the fw > > node rather than fw.enable. The pfil(9) requirement is just a matter of > > documenting the new requirement. The IPDIVERT thing is probably larger > > though. :( We may need to just tell people to compile ipfw into the ke= rnel > > for now if they want divert sockets, much as they do if they want 'defa= ult to > > accept'. >=20 > IPDIVERT wasn't compiled into the module before. It's surrounded by > #if !defined(KLD_MODULE). However if the kernel was compiled with option > IPDIVERT but w/o IPFIREWALL is was working anyway. >=20 Will this produce a working "ipfw divert" now: 1. Kernel compiled with IPDIVERT but w/o IPFIREWALL. 2. ipfw.ko compiled with IPDIVERT in CFLAGS. Cheers, --=20 Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer --TYecfFk8j8mZq+dy Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBJOl4qRfpzJluFF4RAshzAKCV4KhAEObggGbJeXRo93m7vvxzXQCgmsaG SWUU/t7AFSINxBMx4CPPNWY= =ZJ18 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --TYecfFk8j8mZq+dy--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040819175504.GC44018>