Hello,
I'm not sure it is the right place to submit patches. Let me know if there is
better/more appropriate address for this.
during our testing we've found the once rules are not removed,
when used in main anchor.
during debugging we found the rules in main anchor have member anchor set to
NULL (pf_rule::anchor). This makes pf_purge_rule() function to bail out
to early without removing the rule from ruleset.
patch below fixed problem for us.
regards
sasha
---- cut here to get patch -------
Index: pf_ioctl.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/net/pf_ioctl.c,v
retrieving revision 1.272
diff -u -r1.272 pf_ioctl.c
--- pf_ioctl.c 22 Apr 2014 14:41:03 -0000 1.272
+++ pf_ioctl.c 20 Jun 2014 14:26:22 -0000
@@ -312,7 +312,7 @@
{
u_int32_t nr;
- if (ruleset == NULL || ruleset->anchor == NULL)
+ if (ruleset == NULL)
return;
pf_rm_rule(ruleset->rules.active.ptr, rule);
@@ -325,7 +325,10 @@
ruleset->rules.active.ticket++;
pf_calc_skip_steps(ruleset->rules.active.ptr);
- pf_remove_if_empty_ruleset(ruleset);
+
+ if (ruleset != &pf_main_ruleset) {
+ pf_remove_if_empty_ruleset(ruleset);
+ }
}
u_int16_t
Index: pf_ioctl.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/net/pf_ioctl.c,v
retrieving revision 1.272
diff -u -r1.272 pf_ioctl.c
--- pf_ioctl.c 22 Apr 2014 14:41:03 -0000 1.272
+++ pf_ioctl.c 20 Jun 2014 14:26:22 -0000
@@ -312,7 +312,7 @@
{
u_int32_t nr;
- if (ruleset == NULL || ruleset->anchor == NULL)
+ if (ruleset == NULL)
return;
pf_rm_rule(ruleset->rules.active.ptr, rule);
@@ -325,7 +325,10 @@
ruleset->rules.active.ticket++;
pf_calc_skip_steps(ruleset->rules.active.ptr);
- pf_remove_if_empty_ruleset(ruleset);
+
+ if (ruleset != &pf_main_ruleset) {
+ pf_remove_if_empty_ruleset(ruleset);
+ }
}
u_int16_t
