Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    There error(s) loading the rules: pfctl: DIOCXCOMMIT: Device busy

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved 2.1 Snapshot Feedback and Problems - RETIRED
    16 Posts 3 Posters 11.9k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • S
      S_D
      last edited by

      Hmmm, another update. Sorry for appearing to spam this but I'm genuinely not!

      Anyway, it appears that after my ISP (O2 UK) made some changes on the network last week, the way that my static IP address is handled has changed. Whereas before I set my static IP address manually, now they say that I have to use DHCP, where I will be assigned a reservation. I guess I've just worked out why.

      So, after my 'fix' above of changing to a static IP on the WAN, the connection totally drops out after 30 minutes. A reboot doesn't sort it - the only thing that will sort it is going back to DHCP on the WAN. I guess the ISP is looking for the DHCP lease request, and if it doesn't get it then assumes the connection is down - or other such weirdness.

      Anyway, it leads me back around to what started this thread. In DHCP mode on the WAN I'm getting this strange error (thread title).

      Any more ideas are gratefully appreciated

      Thanks,

      Simon

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • E
        eri--
        last edited by

        Have you tried disabling pfBlocker and see if that fixes it?

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • S
          S_D
          last edited by

          @ermal:

          Have you tried disabling pfBlocker and see if that fixes it?

          Yup, I've tried that. Indeed, it disables itself when updating to the new snapshots that are released.

          But do you mean just disabling it, or disabling all the aliased rules I have too?

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • E
            eri--
            last edited by

            Disable the package and the rules that reference aliases from it.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • S
              S_D
              last edited by

              @ermal:

              Disable the package and the rules that reference aliases from it.

              Thanks - I'll try that tonight when I get home.

              Is it enough to disable the rules, or do I actually have to delete them?

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • E
                eri--
                last edited by

                Just disable them.
                Though the most important are the aliases content in this case.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • S
                  S_D
                  last edited by

                  Hi,

                  Well that's interesting - I've just taken a gamble and done it remotely from the office.
                  I disabled the rules, then disabled pfBlocker and no error on reboot! Very strange.
                  So,
                  IPv6 tunnel ON, pfBlocker OFF, DHCP WAN address = No error
                  IPv6 tunnel ON, pfBlocker ON, Static WAN address = No error
                  IPv6 tunnel OFF, pfBlocker On, DHCP WAN address = No error
                  IPv6 tunnel ON, pfBlocker On, DHCP WAN address = error!

                  So disabling any of pfBlocker, IPv6, or the DHCP address stops the error… I've very confused.

                  Thanks for your help so far

                  Simon

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • S
                    S_D
                    last edited by

                    Me again! :)

                    OK, done some more testing.

                    With all the rules used for pfBlocker disabled, I then disabled all the individual lists that I load. Reboot - no error. Then one by one turned them back on, and once we got to the larger lists (then rebooting) it started to get the error again.

                    So putting together this, along with the post above, it just seems that a combination of things make the 'timeout' get reached, and for the error to occur, including adding larger lists into pfBlocker.

                    Is there a configurable option somewhere to set this timeout or to see in more detail as to what's 'failing'?

                    Thanks,

                    Simon

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • E
                      eri--
                      last edited by

                      No its a pfblocker fault here on how it does things.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • S
                        S_D
                        last edited by

                        Thanks for that :) I'll ask pfBlocker guy to look at it

                        One last thing - are you sure, considering that I don't get this error just by disabling my IPv6 tunnel?

                        Many thanks for all your help

                        Simon

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • P
                          priller
                          last edited by

                          For me, this problem went away after I set "Top Spammers" to Disabled.  All my other lists are still active.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.