RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1182105 - sysctl.conf / sysctl.conf.d settings should be applied after bridge is added
Summary: sysctl.conf / sysctl.conf.d settings should be applied after bridge is added
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: systemd
Version: 7.0
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
low
high
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: systemd-maint
QA Contact: Vaclav Danek
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 1122700 1213313 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks: 919472 1205796
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-01-14 12:57 UTC by Michal Sekletar
Modified: 2019-12-16 04:37 UTC (History)
13 users (show)

Fixed In Version: systemd-219-2.el7
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Cause: Settings from sysctl.conf for bridges were applied only during boot. Problem is that the kernel bridge module could be loaded later, so such settings is not applied. Consequence: Fix: We have added a udev rule which applies those setting when bridge module is loaded. Result:
Clone Of: 1122700
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-11-19 15:04:10 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2015:2092 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE systemd bug fix and enhancement update 2015-11-19 12:13:57 UTC

Comment 2 Laine Stump 2015-02-23 19:52:14 UTC
This was posted to the original of this BZ (filed against Fedora) last week:

(Scott Shambarger from comment #43 of Bug 634736)
> Just noticed the boot message:
> 
> bridge: automatic filtering via arp/ip/ip6tables has been deprecated. Update
> your scripts to load br_netfilter if you need this.
> 
> The new module appears to export the bridge sysctl values, but the udev rule
> in /lib/udev/rules.d/99-bridge.rules still refers to the bridge module (not
> the br_netfilter module), and so the bridge netfilter values after loading
> br_netfilter are:
> 
> net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-arptables = 1
> net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-ip6tables = 1
> net.bridge.bridge-nf-call-iptables = 1
> 
> Granted, if you load br_netfilter explicitly, you probably want to use it,
> but then /usr/sysctl.d/50-bridge.conf should probably be removed as it is no
> longer needed to disable bridge netfilter (by default) anymore.

Here is my comment on that, lifted from the same BZ:

(Laine Stump from comment #44 of Bug 634736)
> After all these years of asking for the default of bridge filtering to be
> "disabled" and the change being refused by the kernel maintainers, now the
> filtering has been moved into a separate module that isn't loaded (by
> default) when the bridge module is loaded, effectively making the default
> "disabled". Yay!
> 
> I *think* this is in the kernel as of 3.17 (It definitely is in kernel
> 3.18.7-200.fc21, and appears to be in git prior to the tag "v3.17-rc4")
> 
> So again the problem has disappeared for our case, so we're happy, but the
> general problem (as in the latest version of this bug's summary) is still
> there. What is the proper action for this BZ then? Do we leave it around
> (knowing that, based on the experience up to now, the general problem will
> likely never be fixed), close it as WONTFIX, or close it with one or another
> of the "resolved" reasons, since our particular problem has been fixed by
> the addition of the new module?

There is a similar question for RHEL - when RHEL7 moves up to a new enough kernel (or backports the br_netfilter module) should this BZ be closed as a result, or do we leave it open in the likely fruitless hope that a general purpose solution for setting non-compiled-in defaults of kernel module settings at module load time will be implemented?

Or, do we leave it open in the expectation that it will take the RHEL7 kernel a long time to catch up, and continue to ask for a systemd-based fix in the meantime? (I don't really like that idea, but wanted to put all the options up)

Comment 3 David Shea 2015-04-14 17:45:58 UTC
*** Bug 1122700 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 4 David Shea 2015-04-20 13:08:44 UTC
*** Bug 1213313 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 5 Lukáš Nykrýn 2015-05-13 15:13:11 UTC
lets go for the short-time solution in rhel


https://github.com/lnykryn/systemd-rhel/commit/05f3e4b89d6503a4a327be9bee9802097bc8c860
->post

Comment 7 errata-xmlrpc 2015-11-19 15:04:10 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-2092.html

Comment 8 Milos Vyletel 2016-08-17 12:49:40 UTC
I'm sorry to revive this old BZ but the fixed pulled in does not really work.
there is a quite large window between raising the udev event in kernel and
actually creating the sysctls. looking at 7.2 kernel source we do

init_module() syscall
  load_module()
    mod_sysfs_setup()
      kobject_uevent(&mod->mkobj.kobj, KOBJ_ADD);
    ...
    do_init_module()
      br_init()
        br_netfilter_init()
          register_net_sysctl()

if the udev event is processed anywhere between the mod_sysfs_setup() and
br_netfilter_init() the setting do not get set. one customer noticed this and
as a test created simple udev rule that triggers at this time and runs


[root@compute-1 ~]# cat /lib/udev/rules.d/41-kha.rules 
# do not edit this file, it will be overwritten on update

# reload sysctl.conf / sysctl.conf.d settings when the bridge module is loaded
ACTION=="add", SUBSYSTEM=="module", KERNEL=="bridge", RUN+="/root/bridgetest.sh"
[root@compute-1 ~]# cat bridgetest.sh 
#!/bin/bash
exec >> /tmp/bridgetest.log

echo triggered..
date
ls -l /proc/sys/net/bridge
echo sleeping...
sleep 1
date
ls -l /proc/sys/net/bridge
[root@compute-1 ~]# 

which gives following output

triggered..
Wed Aug  3 14:39:45 EEST 2016
sleeping...
Wed Aug  3 14:39:46 EEST 2016
total 0
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 Aug  3 14:39 bridge-nf-call-arptables
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 Aug  3 14:39 bridge-nf-call-ip6tables
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 Aug  3 14:39 bridge-nf-call-iptables
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 Aug  3 14:39 bridge-nf-filter-pppoe-tagged
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 Aug  3 14:39 bridge-nf-filter-vlan-tagged
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 0 Aug  3 14:39 bridge-nf-pass-vlan-input-de

note that the first ls does not show anything...

question really is how to fix this. kernel can be quite easily modified to
trigger the event after do_init_module() finishes but this is not in upstream
so there may be some pushback or we can pull in the split to br_netfilter
and reduce the number of use cases where this happens. in any case what we
have now does not seem to be sufficient

Comment 10 ilmostro7 2016-10-22 21:04:57 UTC
The status of this Bug is "CLOSED".  Does the last response not warrant it to be re-opened?

Comment 11 Michal Sekletar 2016-10-24 07:17:10 UTC
(In reply to ilmostro7 from comment #10)
> The status of this Bug is "CLOSED".  Does the last response not warrant it
> to be re-opened?

We need to file a new bug against kernel.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.