On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 12:42:13PM +0400, Boris Polevoy wrote: > Is it bug or not?
Yes, it looks like a bug. Or, more than one, actually. I assume what you expect the sequence to do is the same as # echo 'anchor "external"' | pfctl -f - # echo 'anchor "internal"' | pfctl -a external -f - # echo 'pass all' | pfctl -a external/internal -f - (leaving out the table, which isn't really relevant, I think) i.e. you expect "internal" to be nested within "external", like # pfctl -vsA external external/internal # pfctl -sr anchor "external" all # pfctl -a external -sr anchor "internal" all # pfctl -a external/internal -sr pass all Your patch fixes that. But there is another one, when doing "pfctl -a external -f", it doesn't prefix the (relative!) paths within the input with the anchor specified through -a. Therefore, when I do the same (it should be the same, IMO) with files, like # cat x anchor "external" load anchor "external" from "y" # cat y anchor "internal" load anchor "internal" from "z" # cat z pass z # pfctl -f x # pfctl -vsA external external/internal internal # pfctl -a external/internal -sr [ empty ] # pfctl -a internal -sr pass all the rule loaded from z is not placed into the right anchor (external/internal), but a second anchor (internal) is created for it. I'll have to find the right place to fix THAT, too. Daniel
