NetBSD-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: npf questions



Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost> writes:

> On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 09:37:05AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> So which of these is a bug?
>>   - that bpfjit is not compiled in
>>   - that there isn't a way to load modules that are signed, even at
>>     higher securelevel
>>   - that the big scary warning is printed
>>   - something else?
>
> None?
> Suggested workaround: put it in /etc/modules.conf
>
> That should cause it to be loaded before securelevel rises.

Indeed, I have already put it in modules.conf, and that works.

I think it's a bug that using the standard firewall with the default
config leads to lower performance (or so it says) and a big scary
warning that is easily misinterpreted as "your firewall did not get
enabled due to this module error".

I don't see why part of npf is built in and the other part isn't.

If bpfjit is truly optional and not a big deal then maybe npfctl should
just not load it, so that it's used if loaded explicitly.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature



Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index