The current API for adding rules with pool addresses is the following:
- DIOCADDADDR adds addresses and puts them into V_pf_pabuf - DIOCADDRULE takes all addresses from V_pf_pabuf and links them into rule.
The ugly part is that if address is a table, then it is initialized in DIOCADDRULE, because we need ruleset, and DIOCADDADDR doesn't supply ruleset. But if address is a dynaddr, we need address family, and address family could be different for different addresses in one rule, so dynaddr is initialized in DIOCADDADDR.
This leads to the entangled state of addresses on V_pf_pabuf. Some are initialized, and some not. That's why running pf_empty_pool(&V_pf_pabuf) can lead to a panic on a NULL table address.
Since proper fix requires API/ABI change, for now simply plug the panic in pf_empty_pool().
Merge r264915 which should help with Ticket #3223
The current API for adding rules with pool addresses is the following:
- DIOCADDADDR adds addresses and puts them into V_pf_pabuf
- DIOCADDRULE takes all addresses from V_pf_pabuf and links
them into rule.
The ugly part is that if address is a table, then it is initialized
in DIOCADDRULE, because we need ruleset, and DIOCADDADDR doesn't
supply ruleset. But if address is a dynaddr, we need address family,
and address family could be different for different addresses in one
rule, so dynaddr is initialized in DIOCADDADDR.
This leads to the entangled state of addresses on V_pf_pabuf. Some are
initialized, and some not. That's why running pf_empty_pool(&V_pf_pabuf)
can lead to a panic on a NULL table address.
Since proper fix requires API/ABI change, for now simply plug the panic
in pf_empty_pool().
Reported by: danger