Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 05:01:38 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 212595] ipfw can't enable or disable sets 5 to 30 Message-ID: <bug-212595-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D212595 Bug ID: 212595 Summary: ipfw can't enable or disable sets 5 to 30 Product: Base System Version: 11.0-RC1 Hardware: Any OS: Any Status: New Severity: Affects Some People Priority: --- Component: kern Assignee: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Reporter: avernar@gmail.com Using ipfw you can't enable or disable sets if any set 5 or higher are specified: # ipfw set disable 1 # ipfw set disable 2 # ipfw set disable 3 # ipfw set disable 4 # ipfw set disable 5 ipfw: set enable/disable: setsockopt(IP_FW_SET_ENABLE): Invalid argument # ipfw set disable 1 2 3 # ipfw set disable 1 2 4 # ipfw set disable 1 2 5 ipfw: set enable/disable: setsockopt(IP_FW_SET_ENABLE): Invalid argument The problem is in ip_fw_sockopt.c in the manage_sets function. For IP_FW_SET_ENABLE the rh->range.set and rh->range.new_set variables are bitm= asks and not a single set number. This is because multiple sets can be disabled= and enabled with a single call. The new check against IPFS_MAX_SETS in that function is triggered since if = set 5 or higher is specified the value of those variables is 32 or higher. For the IP_FW_SET_SWAP and IP_FW_SET_MOVE those two variables are indeed set numbers so the check is valid. The check should be moved inside the switch just for those two cases. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-212595-8>