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 1301573 - firewalld reporting errors in logs for failed iptables commands
Summary: firewalld reporting errors in logs for failed iptables commands
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: firewalld
Version: 7.2
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
low
medium
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Thomas Woerner
QA Contact: Tomas Dolezal
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 1326618 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-01-25 12:14 UTC by Peter Portante
Modified: 2020-09-21 09:23 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: firewalld-0.4.2-1.el7
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-11-03 21:02:10 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Knowledge Base (Solution) 2019113 0 None None None 2020-03-24 05:50:21 UTC
Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2016:2597 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE Moderate: firewalld security, bug fix, and enhancement update 2016-11-03 12:11:47 UTC

Description Peter Portante 2016-01-25 12:14:14 UTC 
We are seeing errors in logs for a series of iptables commands coming from docker (apparently):

# systemctl status -l firewalld
● firewalld.service - firewalld - dynamic firewall daemon
   Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/firewalld.service; enabled; vendor preset: enabled)
   Active: active (running) since Wed 2016-01-20 17:24:39 UTC; 4 days ago
 Main PID: 8835 (firewalld)
   Memory: 16.6M
   CGroup: /system.slice/firewalld.service
           └─8835 /usr/bin/python -Es /usr/sbin/firewalld --nofork --nopid

Jan 20 17:24:40 perf48.example.com firewalld[8835]: 2016-01-20 12:24:40 ERROR: COMMAND_FAILED: '/sbin/iptables -w2 -t nat -C POSTROUTING -s 172.17.42.1/16 ! -o docker0 -j MASQUERADE' failed: iptables: No chain/target/match by that name.
Jan 20 17:24:40 perf48.example.com firewalld[8835]: 2016-01-20 12:24:40 ERROR: COMMAND_FAILED: '/sbin/iptables -w2 -D FORWARD -i docker0 -o docker0 -j DROP' failed: iptables: Bad rule (does a matching rule exist in that chain?).
Jan 20 17:24:40 perf48.example.com firewalld[8835]: 2016-01-20 12:24:40 ERROR: COMMAND_FAILED: '/sbin/iptables -w2 -t filter -C FORWARD -i docker0 -o docker0 -j ACCEPT' failed: iptables: Bad rule (does a matching rule exist in that chain?).
Jan 20 17:24:40 perf48.example.com firewalld[8835]: 2016-01-20 12:24:40 ERROR: COMMAND_FAILED: '/sbin/iptables -w2 -t filter -C FORWARD -i docker0 ! -o docker0 -j ACCEPT' failed: iptables: Bad rule (does a matching rule exist in that chain?).
Jan 20 17:24:40 perf48.example.com firewalld[8835]: 2016-01-20 12:24:40 ERROR: COMMAND_FAILED: '/sbin/iptables -w2 -t filter -C FORWARD -o docker0 -m conntrack --ctstate RELATED,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT' failed: iptables: Bad rule (does a matching rule exist in that chain?).
Jan 20 17:24:40 perf48.example.com firewalld[8835]: 2016-01-20 12:24:40 ERROR: COMMAND_FAILED: '/sbin/iptables -w2 -t nat -n -L DOCKER' failed: iptables: No chain/target/match by that name.
Jan 20 17:24:40 perf48.example.com firewalld[8835]: 2016-01-20 12:24:40 ERROR: COMMAND_FAILED: '/sbin/iptables -w2 -t nat -C PREROUTING -m addrtype --dst-type LOCAL -j DOCKER' failed: iptables: No chain/target/match by that name.
Jan 20 17:24:40 perf48.example.com firewalld[8835]: 2016-01-20 12:24:40 ERROR: COMMAND_FAILED: '/sbin/iptables -w2 -t nat -C OUTPUT -m addrtype --dst-type LOCAL -j DOCKER ! --dst 127.0.0.0/8' failed: iptables: No chain/target/match by that name.
Jan 20 17:24:40 perf48.example.com firewalld[8835]: 2016-01-20 12:24:40 ERROR: COMMAND_FAILED: '/sbin/iptables -w2 -t filter -n -L DOCKER' failed: iptables: No chain/target/match by that name.
Jan 20 17:24:40 perf48.example.com firewalld[8835]: 2016-01-20 12:24:40 ERROR: COMMAND_FAILED: '/sbin/iptables -w2 -t filter -C FORWARD -o docker0 -j DOCKER' failed: iptables: No chain/target/match by that name.

Dan Walsh reports that, "I am not sure these are errors.  Docker tries to make sure their are no existing rules in firewalld before setting up a container, so it tells firewalld to remove any rules.  If there are no rules, firewalld is logging that fact and you see these in the log file."

If these are true errors, then I think we should leave them as is, and then develop some way to find a way to remove them.  But if they are firewalld doing something on behalf of a request made to it from docker, then perhaps we should consider a way to turn these into warnings.
Comment 4 Thomas Woerner 2016-04-12 15:00:24 UTC 
Here is the upstream fix: https://github.com/t-woerner/firewalld/commit/f47fe3989f6935bd0eddb79bdf8c07225115f5bd
Comment 5 Thomas Woerner 2016-04-13 11:20:53 UTC 
*** Bug 1326618 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 9 errata-xmlrpc 2016-11-03 21:02:10 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/RHSA-2016-2597.html
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.