Bug 1325335 - [RFE] allow negation of icmp-blocks zone configuration field
Summary: [RFE] allow negation of icmp-blocks zone configuration field
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: firewalld
Version: 7.2
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Thomas Woerner
QA Contact: Tomas Dolezal
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-04-08 13:10 UTC by Tomas Dolezal
Modified: 2016-11-03 21:02 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version: firewalld-0.4.2-1.el7
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-11-03 21:02:45 UTC
Target Upstream Version:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
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 Tomas Dolezal 2016-04-08 13:10:52 UTC
Description of problem:
based on discussion from
bug 1136801 comment 11 and
bug 1136801 comment 15

There came an idea to have possibility to include the only icmp types in icmp-blocks field instead of excluding them.

To have it as follows:
* 'icmp-blocks' becomes 'icmp-filter' - it should be backwards compatible with (possibly hidden) 'icmp-blocks' setting
* default behaviour stays the same
* rough description: the whole field can be negated (could use a '!'); from --list-all or --zone-info it's apparent what behaviour is currently set.
* behaviour is not dependent on 'default-target' of a zone (would be anti-UX) (this was in original idea)

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
firewalld-0.3.9-14.el7

Additional info:
In el7 icmp-blocks are added one at a time, this might pose a problem with field's functional inversion

Comment 8 errata-xmlrpc 2016-11-03 21:02:45 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.