On 11/4/2014 5:05 PM, Thomas D. wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2014-11-05 01:30, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> I'm tempted to remove the LOG_BACKEND option until those guys make up
>> their minds.
> 
> I understand, but this option is really helpful. See all the recurring
> error reports regarding not working logging... due to the "wrong" set
> nf_log module.
> 
> Maybe we can support custom values:
> 
> The documentation should tell the users where they find the supported
> value for the LOG_BACKEND option for their system (i.e. telling them to
> run "cat /proc/net/netfilter/nf_log"...). We should tell them why this
> value is system dependent.
> 
> Maybe shorewall can validate the value on check/compile. At least
> shorewall should catch the error when setting the log backend failed and
> show an useful error message telling the user what's the problem and how
> they can fix it. Something like
> 
>> Compiling...
>> Processing /etc/shorewall/params ...
>> Processing /etc/shorewall/shorewall.conf...
>> Loading Modules...
>>    ERROR: Invalid LOG Backend (ipt_LOG)
>>    The current active kernel supports the following LOG Backends:
>>      - nf_log_ipv4
>>      - nfnetlink_log
>>    See `man 5 shorewall.conf` for more details
> 
> ...and in shorewall.conf's man page we would explain everything.

In general, the compiler can't validate the value since it can be
running on a system other than where the firewall is to run under
Shorewall-lite.

-Tom
-- 
Tom Eastep        \ When I die, I want to go like my Grandfather who
Shoreline,         \ died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like
Washington, USA     \ all of the passengers in his car
http://shorewall.net \________________________________________________

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Shorewall-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-devel

Reply via email to