On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 14:32 -0700, J. Randall Owens wrote: > Pardon me if I'm wrong, but in line 208, haven't you inverted the > significance of the empty string comparison, by switching if to unless and > not adding a '!'? Granted, it will still have the same outcome when it > gets to the if/then $originalmark comparison and doesn't match. The sense > of the logical operator is inverted also; the '||' should have been > changed to a '&&' (otherwise, the empty string comparison will only ever > be checked if $mark is undefined, in which case it's hardly going to be > equal, and may throw an error depending on strictness).
You are absolutely correct. Add-on patch attached. -Tom -- Tom Eastep \ When I die, I want to go like my Grandfather who Shoreline, \ died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like Washington, USA \ all of the passengers in his car http://shorewall.net \________________________________________________
diff --git a/Shorewall/Perl/Shorewall/Tc.pm b/Shorewall/Perl/Shorewall/Tc.pm
index 3721a09..305e9ab 100644
--- a/Shorewall/Perl/Shorewall/Tc.pm
+++ b/Shorewall/Perl/Shorewall/Tc.pm
@@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ sub process_tc_rule( ) {
my ( $mark, $designator, $remainder ) = split( /:/, $originalmark, 3 );
- fatal_error "Invalid MARK ($originalmark)" unless defined $mark || $mark eq '';
+ fatal_error "Invalid MARK ($originalmark)" unless supplied $mark;
if ( $remainder ) {
if ( $originalmark =~ /^\w+\(?.*\)$/ ) {
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2
_______________________________________________ Shorewall-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/shorewall-users
