Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 01:43:22 +1000 (EST) From: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> To: "Andrey V. Elsukov" <bu7cher@yandex.ru> Cc: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com>, freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org, FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Significant missing item in 11.0 release notes Message-ID: <20160802012633.X29054@sola.nimnet.asn.au> In-Reply-To: <3b44dbc7-95c9-b529-c1a4-47a4af0774cf@yandex.ru> References: <CAN6yY1t4CoG1DSN1bJJTfUxjQJxWR=k0Lr3gx0v0Wvu=LmMhpw@mail.gmail.com> <3b44dbc7-95c9-b529-c1a4-47a4af0774cf@yandex.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 16:39:45 +0300, Andrey V. Elsukov wrote: > On 31.07.16 22:28, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > I assumed that I had missed this in the release notes, but I can find no > > reference to this significant change that simultaneously greatly enhanced > > ipfw table functionality, but also broke my configuration. While the fix > > was trivial, if the Release Notes had addressed this, I would not have had > > the problem in the first place. > > I fixed this in r303615. Thanks for the report! Fast work Andrey, and sorry for rushing in. I ASSumed, after reading the new tables section in 11.0-R ipfw(8), that Kevin had run into: Tables require explicit creation via create before use. but diving - not too deeply - into the log of /head/sbin/ipfw/tables.c from your commit, I think that statement must be out of date, at least regarding existing ruleset table configuration? Is that right? cheers, Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160802012633.X29054>