Re: svn commit: r337536 - head/sbin/ipfw

[Rodney W. Grimes]

[ text/html is unsupported, treating like TEXT/PLAIN ]
Can you resend in none html format please?



> <br /><br />19:50, 9 ?????????????? 2018 ??., "Rodney W. Grimes" 
> &lt;free...@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net&gt;:<br /><blockquote><p>-- Start of PGP 
> signed section.<br />[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]<br 
> /></p><blockquote>??On 09.08.2018 19:19, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:<br 
> />??&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; table add/delete commands had the same behavior, "nat" 
> already noted in<br />??&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; this list. What is the usage 
> scenario do you use, where you need to fail<br />??&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; on bad 
> delete?<br />??&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />??&gt;&gt;&gt; if [ ipfw delete ${1} ]; 
> then<br />??&gt;&gt;&gt;  handle the missing rule<br />??&gt;&gt;&gt; fi<br 
> />??&gt;&gt;<br />??&gt;&gt; This is mostly unneeded operation, that we 
> wanted to avoid.<br />??&gt;&gt; I.e. to be able run in bath mode:<br 
> />??&gt;&gt;<br />??&gt;&gt; delete ${n}<br />??&gt;&gt; add ${n} ...<br 
> />??&gt; <br />??&gt; That is one use case, but any shell script worth 
> writting<br />??&gt; is worth writting to handle error conditions, and not 
> being<br />??&gt; able to handle errors while being silent is a PITA.<br 
> /><br />??Ok, I still don't understand the usefulness of knowing the error<br 
> />??code of delete command. But, I can propose the following solution:<br 
> />??Index: ipfw2.c<br 
> />??===================================================================<br 
> />??--- ipfw2.c    (revision 337541)<br />??+++ ipfw2.c    (working copy)<br 
> />??@@ -3314,7 +3314,7 @@ ipfw_delete(char *av[])<br 
> />????????????????????????????????????????????????????}<br 
> />????????????????????????????????????}<br />????????????????????}<br />??-   
> if (exitval != EX_OK &amp;&amp; co.do_quiet == 0)<br />??+      if (exitval 
> != EX_OK &amp;&amp; co.do_force == 0)<br 
> />????????????????????????????????????exit(exitval);<br />????}<br /><br 
> /><br />??With this patch -q will work as "quiet", -f will work as 
> "force".<br />??So, you can still get error code in shell script, and I can 
> run batched<br />??commands with -q -f:<br /><br />??# ipfw -f delete 
> <span>10000-11000</span> ; echo $?<br />??ipfw: no rules rules in 
> <span>10000-11000</span> range<br />??0<br />??# ipfw -qf delete 
> <span>10000-11000</span> ; echo $?<br />??0<br />??# ipfw -q delete 
> <span>10000-11000</span> ; echo $?<br />??69<br /><br />??Are you fine with 
> this?<br /></blockquote><p>In spirit yes, in implementation No:<br /><br 
> />The -f option is documented, and actually does, something different<br 
> />than what your change would implement.<br /><br />??????????-f      Do not 
> ask for confirmation for commands that can cause problems<br 
> />??????????????????????????if misused, i.e., flush.  If there is no tty 
> associated with the<br />??????????????????????????process, this is 
> implied.<br /></p></blockquote>But this option means "force", with -f ipfw(8) 
> will not ask any questions and forcebly execute the command. The description 
> in man page can be modified to correctly describe the case.??<br /><br 
> />???????????????????? ???? ?????????????????? ????????????.??????????: 
> http://m.ya.ru/ymail
-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgri...@freebsd.org

_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"