On Wed, Aug 07, 2013 at 10:34 +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Maxim Khitrov <[email protected]> [2013-08-06 19:08]:
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Henning Brauer
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > * Maxim Khitrov <[email protected]> [2013-08-01 13:50]:
> > >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> 
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > On 2013/07/31 09:04, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> > >> >> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:53 AM, Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> 
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> > On 2013/07/30 14:41, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> > >> >> >> I expected a "match quick ..." rule in pf.conf to terminate ruleset
> > >> >> >> evaluation without changing the pass/block state.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > "match quick" seems like a config error to me, what use would it 
> > >> >> > have?
> > >> >> > maybe it should just be rejected?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I think it's nice way of preventing errors. It gives you a way of
> > >> >> applying the default block rule, unless something else was matched,
> > >> >
> > >> > The default rule in PF is not block, it's "pass flags any no state" 
> > >> > which is
> > >> > likely to trip people up if they accidentally use it with tcp and 
> > >> > window
> > >> > scaling (this default rule is probably responsible for the majority of
> > >> > PF configuration mistakes that I've seen..) I'm just a bit leery of 
> > >> > changing
> > >> > syntax in a way which allows this to be hit more easily.
> > >>
> > >> You're right - I meant the default "block" rule that should be at the
> > >> top of every pf.conf. This mechanism is more general than just
> > >> applying the default. Whichever pass/block rule was matched last,
> > >> that's what gets applied. It's no different than falling off the end
> > >> of the ruleset, so I don't think it exacerbates any existing problems.
> > > I couldn't agree more.
> > So what's the verdict on this?
> 
> your diff should go in.
> to commit it, I need oks. guys, you know who you are :)
> 

i have performed some scrunity tests with anchors and
couldn't find a case where it would do the wrong thing.
same results from studying the code itself.  in other
words, i think it's fairly safe to make this change.
ok mikeb.

> -- 
> Henning Brauer, [email protected], [email protected]
> BS Web Services GmbH, http://bsws.de, Full-Service ISP
> Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services. Dedicated Servers, Root to Fully 
> Managed
> Henning Brauer Consulting, http://henningbrauer.com/

Reply via email to