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.

Description of problem:
cli: RFE direct rule: set "filter" table as default. in iptables it may be omitted because it defaults to it. firewalld should not ignore that.

manpage: add examples of direct rules (there isn't even one)

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
firewalld-0.3.4-1

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
works: firewall-cmd --direct --add-rule ipv4 filter INPUT 1 -s 192.168.253.253 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DROP
not work: firewall-cmd --direct --add-rule ipv4 INPUT 1 -s 192.168.253.253 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DROP


Expected results:
* direct rule without table specification defaults to "filter" table
* the rule may be shown and represented with it, the point is just to ease it for the user when configuring

Additional info:

The use of a default table for the direct interface will make parsing much more complicated and also ambiguous. This could end up in big problems.

Closing as NOT A BUG.