Bug 646 – IPFWADM fails when setting non-default rules

Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.

Bug 646 - IPFWADM fails when setting non-default rules

Summary:	IPFWADM fails when setting non-default rules

Status:	CLOSED WORKSFORME

Aliases:	None

Product:	Red Hat Linux
Classification:	Retired
Component:	distribution (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	5.2
Hardware:	alpha Linux

Priority	medium Severity high
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	David Lawrence
QA Contact:
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends On:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	1998-12-29 13:34 EST by gnw
Modified:	2008-05-01 11:37 EDT (History)
CC List:	0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	1999-04-08 13:26:51 EDT
Type:	---
Regression:	---
Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Groups: None (edit)

Description gnw 1998-12-29 13:34:02 EST

I've tried this with 3 different kernels, 2.0.34-36 and RH
dists 5.1 and 5.2 the problem persists.

entering: ipfwadm -F -p masq
works fine and masquerading is activated

entering something like:ipfwadm -F -i deny -S 204.0.1.2
will fail with: ipfwadm: setsockopt failed: Invalid argument

I have copiled a 2.0.35 kernel on an intel box and had no
trouble getting ipfwadm to work as expected.

Comment 1 Jay Turner 1998-12-31 17:39:59 EST

This may sound like a dumb question but do you have IP_Firewalling and
 IP_Masquerading enabled in you kernel config and properly recompiled
the kernel? The kernels ship with 5.2 may have these disabled by
default.

Comment 2 gnw 1999-01-19 18:38:59 EST

Yes, I have compiled in all the appropriate kernel parts.
the Masq, and forwarding are working perfectly except for the inability
to change the non-default rules.

Comment 3 David Lawrence 1999-04-08 13:26:59 EDT

Could not get this to fail on a test lab machine with a stock install
of 5.2

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