Re: set skip on ifgroup

2011-05-21 Thread Theo de Raadt
* Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org [2011-05-19 11:21]: Note that the default ruleset does include a 'set skip on lo' but that's fine since lo* interfaces are by default added to the lo group. If people get bitten by this change, they could either add an

Re: set skip on ifgroup

2011-05-20 Thread Henning Brauer
* Alexander Hall ha...@openbsd.org [2011-05-19 10:25]: On 05/18/11 23:31, Stuart Henderson wrote: set skip in PF has a slightly unexpected behaviour; rather than skipping by interface group, it matches on the non-numeric part of an interface name. I think the prefix match test is a

Re: set skip on ifgroup

2011-05-20 Thread Henning Brauer
* Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com [2011-05-19 11:29]: There is a bigger problem with 'set skip on lo', it is only evaluated during load. So if you create a lo1 afterwards the set skip will not trigger. This is very annoying especially with qemu and tun interfaces. To be honest I'm not

Re: set skip on ifgroup

2011-05-20 Thread Henning Brauer
* Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org [2011-05-19 11:21]: Note that the default ruleset does include a 'set skip on lo' but that's fine since lo* interfaces are by default added to the lo group. If people get bitten by this change, they could either add an interface-name-matching

Re: set skip on ifgroup

2011-05-20 Thread Henning Brauer
* Claudio Jeker cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com [2011-05-19 13:20]: On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:49:59AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2011/05/19 11:26, Claudio Jeker wrote: There is a bigger problem with 'set skip on lo', it is only evaluated during load. So if you create a lo1 afterwards the

Re: set skip on ifgroup

2011-05-20 Thread Henning Brauer
* Reyk Floeter r...@openbsd.org [2011-05-19 11:47]: On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:26:59AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: To be honest I'm not sure who will do a 'set skip on sis' or 'set skip on em'. I would ;-) Sometimes you have machines with different types of physical interfaces where

Re: set skip on ifgroup

2011-05-20 Thread Henning Brauer
* Stuart Henderson s...@spacehopper.org [2011-05-19 11:50]: On 2011/05/19 11:26, Claudio Jeker wrote: There is a bigger problem with 'set skip on lo', it is only evaluated during load. So if you create a lo1 afterwards the set skip will not trigger. This is very annoying especially with

Re: set skip on ifgroup

2011-05-19 Thread Alexander Hall
On 05/18/11 23:31, Stuart Henderson wrote: set skip in PF has a slightly unexpected behaviour; rather than skipping by interface group, it matches on the non-numeric part of an interface name. I think the prefix match test is a common behaviour so I think you should keep that. Example granti

Re: set skip on ifgroup

2011-05-19 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2011/05/19 10:22, Alexander Hall wrote: Hmmm, looking further, it seems ordinary rules only match on the interface name or group as well (in pfi_kif_match()), so maybe you're just plain right after all. :-) Yes, this is the main problem imo. Current 'set skip' handling pre-dates interface

Re: set skip on ifgroup

2011-05-19 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 10:22:07AM +0200, Alexander Hall wrote: On 05/18/11 23:31, Stuart Henderson wrote: set skip in PF has a slightly unexpected behaviour; rather than skipping by interface group, it matches on the non-numeric part of an interface name. I think the prefix match test

Re: set skip on ifgroup

2011-05-19 Thread Reyk Floeter
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:26:59AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: To be honest I'm not sure who will do a 'set skip on sis' or 'set skip on em'. I would ;-) Sometimes you have machines with different types of physical interfaces where one type is used for internal stuff like a dedicated pfsync or

Re: set skip on ifgroup

2011-05-19 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2011/05/19 11:26, Claudio Jeker wrote: There is a bigger problem with 'set skip on lo', it is only evaluated during load. So if you create a lo1 afterwards the set skip will not trigger. This is very annoying especially with qemu and tun interfaces. Right, I noticed this during testing, and

Re: set skip on ifgroup

2011-05-19 Thread Alexander Hall
On 05/19/11 11:43, Reyk Floeter wrote: On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:26:59AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: To be honest I'm not sure who will do a 'set skip on sis' or 'set skip on em'. I would ;-) You would, however, not have a big problem adding 'group em' to the corresponding

Re: set skip on ifgroup

2011-05-19 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:43:54AM +0200, Reyk Floeter wrote: On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 11:26:59AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: To be honest I'm not sure who will do a 'set skip on sis' or 'set skip on em'. I would ;-) ... but you don't at the moment. Sometimes you have machines with

set skip on ifgroup

2011-05-18 Thread Stuart Henderson
set skip in PF has a slightly unexpected behaviour; rather than skipping by interface group, it matches on the non-numeric part of an interface name. for example: ifconfig carp5 group foo -group carp set skip on carp - carp5 is still skipped. no manpage change included as set skip is already