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.

Customer states they are running into the same exact issue as the following bug, except on RHEL 7.2


Bug 1163428 - rich rule with destination and no element 


Customer Comment:
----------------------------------------------------------

I am seeing the same issue as described by this unresolved Fedora bug (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1163428). 
It occurs with newer firewalld packges (firewalld-0.3.9-14.el7.noarch). 
I get the same issue when I attempt to create a rich rule with destination address but no protocol/port it gives error:

ERROR: INVALID_RULE: no element, no source

Also, when using a source AND destination address but no protocol/port I get:

Error: INVALID_RULE: destination action

Firstly, the error messages provide no useful information about the problem. Secondly, I would like to understand why a port and/or protocol are required in these scenarios. I think it is a perfectly logical use-case to allow all traffic (protocols) coming into a particular interface/address. Furthermore, "all" is not a valid selection for the protocol, why?

Not urgent but would like to understand the function better and possibly get it fixed to be more intuitive.

Fixed upstream: https://github.com/t-woerner/firewalld/commit/221d810557deb62e0c402bfadf2f965ebdab70f1

*** Bug 1352179 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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