got an ok from henning, anyone else cares to comment?
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 00:40 +0100, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
> updating regress tests, i've noticed that some of the optimizer
> tests are failing with additional (unoptimized) rules popping out.
> digging deeper has shown that is indeed a bug introduced by af-to
> (sorry!). the fix is simple though.
>
> ok?
>
> Index: parse.y
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/pfctl/parse.y,v
> retrieving revision 1.612
> diff -u -p -r1.612 parse.y
> --- parse.y 12 Dec 2011 21:30:27 -0000 1.612
> +++ parse.y 12 Dec 2011 23:37:03 -0000
> @@ -4890,7 +4890,7 @@ expand_rule(struct pf_rule *r, int keepr
> LOOP_THROUGH(struct node_uid, uid, uids,
> LOOP_THROUGH(struct node_gid, gid, gids,
>
> - r->af = r->naf = af;
> + r->af = af;
>
> error += collapse_redirspec(&r->rdr, r, rdr, 0);
> error += collapse_redirspec(&r->nat, r, nat, 0);
> Index: pfctl_optimize.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/sbin/pfctl/pfctl_optimize.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.30
> diff -u -p -r1.30 pfctl_optimize.c
> --- pfctl_optimize.c 23 Nov 2011 10:24:37 -0000 1.30
> +++ pfctl_optimize.c 12 Dec 2011 23:37:03 -0000
> @@ -175,6 +175,7 @@ struct pf_rule_field {
> PF_RULE_FIELD(dst.neg, NOMERGE),
> PF_RULE_FIELD(rtableid, NOMERGE),
> PF_RULE_FIELD(onrdomain, NOMERGE),
> + PF_RULE_FIELD(naf, NOMERGE),
>
> /* These fields can be merged */
> PF_RULE_FIELD(src.addr, COMBINED),
