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

    Strange error: There were error(s) loading the rules: pfctl: pfctl_rules

    General pfSense Questions
    13
    102
    10.9k
    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.
    • F
      Flole @bmeeks
      last edited by

      @bmeeks said in Strange error: There were error(s) loading the rules: pfctl: pfctl_rules:

      You have a corrupted installation with mismatching versions of core system libraries.

      Not entirely sure how that could happen by simply rebooting and why the initial loading of the rules when booting works (aswell as querying the rules/tables and so on) though. To me that sounds like something after the initial loading is causing those errors, otherwise no rules would be loaded?

      Others solved the same behaviour by rebooting, that obviously doesn't fix a mismatched version.

      bmeeksB 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • stephenw10S
        stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
        last edited by

        I suspect in the cases that fixed this by simply rebooting it had somehow loaded an old kernel from a different device.

        I assume you are running Snort?

        F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • F
          Flole @bmeeks
          last edited by

          @bmeeks said in Strange error: There were error(s) loading the rules: pfctl: pfctl_rules:

          Did you by chance, at any point in the recent past, install some third-party package or otherwise switch the pkg repo pointer? The symptoms sound like some libraries on the system do not now match up with others.

          No I didn't, I did a normal reboot and since then things started acting in this weird way. I don't think I updated any packages since I upgraded to 2.6.0 (and that was already a few weeks ago). A messed up library would be used immediately without rebooting though.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • bmeeksB
            bmeeks @Flole
            last edited by

            @flole said in Strange error: There were error(s) loading the rules: pfctl: pfctl_rules:

            @bmeeks said in Strange error: There were error(s) loading the rules: pfctl: pfctl_rules:

            You have a corrupted installation with mismatching versions of core system libraries.

            Not entirely sure how that could happen by simply rebooting and why the initial loading of the rules when booting works (aswell as querying the rules/tables and so on) though. To me that sounds like something after the initial loading is causing those errors, otherwise no rules would be loaded?

            Others solved the same behaviour by rebooting, that obviously doesn't fix a mismatched version.

            The Snort error you posted is coming directly from the custom blocking plug-in code. When the Snort binary is implementing a "block", it does so by making a pf call using the ioctl() primitive within FreeBSD. It passes an Op-Code along with the system call letting the OS know what it wants. In the case of your error, it is asking pf to add an IP address to the snort2c table. That is what the DIOCRADDADDRS op-code means.

            The fact that call is failing tells me that the code for that operation is not present in the OS. But it should always be there.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • bmeeksB
              bmeeks
              last edited by

              The shortest road back to normal operation may be a reinstall.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
              • F
                Flole @stephenw10
                last edited by

                @stephenw10 said in Strange error: There were error(s) loading the rules: pfctl: pfctl_rules:

                I assume you are running Snort?

                Correct, I am running Snort.

                It doesn't seem completely broken though:

                [22.05-RELEASE][root@XXXXXXX]/: pfctl -d
pf disabled
[22.05-RELEASE][root@XXXXXXX]/: pfctl -e
pf enabled

                So it works to some extend apparently. And even running pfctl -a shows that rules are loaded. It seems to me like somehow it's not possible to add new rules to the filter.

                However, clearing rules also does not work:

                [22.05-RELEASE][root@XXXXXX]/: pfctl -Fa
pfctl: pfctl_clear_eth_rules: Device busy

                Is that really the behaviour if there's a mismatch of some libraries? How do the rules end up there initially and why can I query them properly?

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • stephenw10S
                  stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                  last edited by

                  Try running:

                  truss pfctl -g -f /tmp/rules.debug
                  F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • F
                    Flole @stephenw10
                    last edited by

                    Looks like it does "prepare" them to some extend and then tries to apply(?), which fails and then rolls back:

                    ....
ioctl(3,DIOCOSFPADD,0x7fffffffe450)              = 0 (0x0)
ioctl(3,DIOCOSFPADD,0x7fffffffe450)              = 0 (0x0)
read(4,0x8007174c0,32768)                        = 0 (0x0)
close(4)                                         = 0 (0x0)
mmap(0x0,28672,PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANON,-1,0x0) = 34367270912 (0x80072f000)
mmap(0x0,20480,PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANON,-1,0x0) = 34367299584 (0x800736000)
mmap(0x0,86016,PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANON,-1,0x0) = 34367320064 (0x80073b000)
ioctl(3,DIOCXBEGIN,0x7fffffffd568)               ERR#16 'Device busy'
pfctl: write(2,"pfctl: ",7)                              = 7 (0x7)
pfctl_ruleswrite(2,"pfctl_rules",11)                     = 11 (0xb)

write(2,"\n",1)                                  = 1 (0x1)
ioctl(3,DIOCXROLLBACK,0x7fffffffd5a8)            = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,{ SIGHUP|SIGINT|SIGQUIT|SIGKILL|SIGPIPE|SIGALRM|SIGTERM|SIGURG|SIGSTOP|SIGTSTP|SIGCONT|SIGCHLD|SIGTTIN|SIGTTOU|SIGIO|SIGXCPU|SIGXFSZ|SIGVTALRM|SIGPROF|SIGWINCH|SIGINFO|SIGUSR1|SIGUSR2 },{ }) = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,{ },0x0)                 = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,{ SIGHUP|SIGINT|SIGQUIT|SIGKILL|SIGPIPE|SIGALRM|SIGTERM|SIGURG|SIGSTOP|SIGTSTP|SIGCONT|SIGCHLD|SIGTTIN|SIGTTOU|SIGIO|SIGXCPU|SIGXFSZ|SIGVTALRM|SIGPROF|SIGWINCH|SIGINFO|SIGUSR1|SIGUSR2 },{ }) = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,{ },0x0)                 = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,{ SIGHUP|SIGINT|SIGQUIT|SIGKILL|SIGPIPE|SIGALRM|SIGTERM|SIGURG|SIGSTOP|SIGTSTP|SIGCONT|SIGCHLD|SIGTTIN|SIGTTOU|SIGIO|SIGXCPU|SIGXFSZ|SIGVTALRM|SIGPROF|SIGWINCH|SIGINFO|SIGUSR1|SIGUSR2 },{ }) = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,{ },0x0)                 = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,{ SIGHUP|SIGINT|SIGQUIT|SIGKILL|SIGPIPE|SIGALRM|SIGTERM|SIGURG|SIGSTOP|SIGTSTP|SIGCONT|SIGCHLD|SIGTTIN|SIGTTOU|SIGIO|SIGXCPU|SIGXFSZ|SIGVTALRM|SIGPROF|SIGWINCH|SIGINFO|SIGUSR1|SIGUSR2 },{ }) = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,{ },0x0)                 = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,{ SIGHUP|SIGINT|SIGQUIT|SIGKILL|SIGPIPE|SIGALRM|SIGTERM|SIGURG|SIGSTOP|SIGTSTP|SIGCONT|SIGCHLD|SIGTTIN|SIGTTOU|SIGIO|SIGXCPU|SIGXFSZ|SIGVTALRM|SIGPROF|SIGWINCH|SIGINFO|SIGUSR1|SIGUSR2 },{ }) = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,{ },0x0)                 = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,{ SIGHUP|SIGINT|SIGQUIT|SIGKILL|SIGPIPE|SIGALRM|SIGTERM|SIGURG|SIGSTOP|SIGTSTP|SIGCONT|SIGCHLD|SIGTTIN|SIGTTOU|SIGIO|SIGXCPU|SIGXFSZ|SIGVTALRM|SIGPROF|SIGWINCH|SIGINFO|SIGUSR1|SIGUSR2 },{ }) = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,{ },0x0)                 = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,{ SIGHUP|SIGINT|SIGQUIT|SIGKILL|SIGPIPE|SIGALRM|SIGTERM|SIGURG|SIGSTOP|SIGTSTP|SIGCONT|SIGCHLD|SIGTTIN|SIGTTOU|SIGIO|SIGXCPU|SIGXFSZ|SIGVTALRM|SIGPROF|SIGWINCH|SIGINFO|SIGUSR1|SIGUSR2 },{ }) = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,{ },0x0)                 = 0 (0x0)
exit(0x1)
process exit, rval = 1
                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • stephenw10S
                      stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                      last edited by

                      Hmm, not really anything very insightful there unfortunately.

                      I would reinstall that if that's an option for you.

                      F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • F
                        Flole @stephenw10
                        last edited by

                        Isn't the "Device busy" error when it comes to applying those rules showing that something causes some kind of lockup? The first rule loading works apparently, otherwise after a reboot I would end up with an empty ruleset, but something later on causes issue. For examble pf_begin_eth would return EBUSY if it's still waiting for NET_EPOCH_CALL(pf_rollback_eth_cb) to finish (according to the comments in there). As the ethernet-based filtering is new in 2.6.0 afaik it could be that it introduced a bug, especially since I am not the only one having such an issue and such a lockup would also be fixed with a reboot (assuming after the reboot it isn't simply caused again), so that's consistent with what others are seeing aswell, except for me apparently the issue is automatically re-triggered after a reboot for some reason.

                        I will try a reinstall though so I finally migrate to ZFS and have redundant disks aswell, the second HDD is in the appliance now for a few years but is completely unused so far :D

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • stephenw10S
                          stephenw10 Netgate Administrator
                          last edited by

                          Yeah, it could well be a bug. I have alerted out developers.

                          artooroA F 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • artooroA
                            artooro @stephenw10
                            last edited by

                            I've been seeing this problem on quite a few firewalls after upgrading to pfSense 22.05
                            Normally a reboot resolves the issue for awhile until something triggers it again.
                            And I have not been able to figure out what triggers it.

                            A router that had the problem, after a reboot the truss command ends with

                            exit(0x0)					
process exit, rval = 0

                            But when the issue has been triggered prior to reboot it ends with

                            ioctl(3,DIOCOSFPADD,0xbfbfe5c8)			= 0 (0x0)
ioctl(3,DIOCOSFPADD,0xbfbfe5c8)			= 0 (0x0)
ioctl(3,DIOCOSFPADD,0xbfbfe5c8)			= 0 (0x0)
ioctl(3,DIOCOSFPADD,0xbfbfe5c8)			= 0 (0x0)
ioctl(3,DIOCOSFPADD,0xbfbfe5c8)			= 0 (0x0)
read(4,0x20401c80,32768)			= 0 (0x0)
close(4)					= 0 (0x0)
mmap(0x0,12288,PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANON,-1,0x20600008) = 541171712 (0x2041a000)
mmap(0x0,12288,PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANON,-1,0x20600008) = 541184000 (0x2041d000)
mmap(0x0,20480,PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANON,-1,0x20600008) = 541196288 (0x20420000)
mmap(0x0,86016,PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANON,-1,0x20600008) = 541216768 (0x20425000)
ioctl(3,DIOCXBEGIN,0xbfbfd9d0)			ERR#16 'Device busy'
pfctl: write(2,"pfctl: ",7)				= 7 (0x7)
pfctl_ruleswrite(2,"pfctl_rules",11)			= 11 (0xb)

write(2,"\n",1)					= 1 (0x1)
ioctl(3,DIOCXROLLBACK,0xbfbfd9f0)		= 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,{ SIGHUP|SIGINT|SIGQUIT|SIGKILL|SIGPIPE|SIGALRM|SIGTERM|SIGURG|SIGSTOP|SIGTSTP|SIGCONT|SIGCHLD|SIGTTIN|SIGTTOU|SIGIO|SIGXCPU|SIGXFSZ|SIGVTALRM|SIGPROF|SIGWINCH|SIGINFO|SIGUSR1|SIGUSR2 },{ }) = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,{ },0x0)		= 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,{ SIGHUP|SIGINT|SIGQUIT|SIGKILL|SIGPIPE|SIGALRM|SIGTERM|SIGURG|SIGSTOP|SIGTSTP|SIGCONT|SIGCHLD|SIGTTIN|SIGTTOU|SIGIO|SIGXCPU|SIGXFSZ|SIGVTALRM|SIGPROF|SIGWINCH|SIGINFO|SIGUSR1|SIGUSR2 },{ }) = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,{ },0x0)		= 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,{ SIGHUP|SIGINT|SIGQUIT|SIGKILL|SIGPIPE|SIGALRM|SIGTERM|SIGURG|SIGSTOP|SIGTSTP|SIGCONT|SIGCHLD|SIGTTIN|SIGTTOU|SIGIO|SIGXCPU|SIGXFSZ|SIGVTALRM|SIGPROF|SIGWINCH|SIGINFO|SIGUSR1|SIGUSR2 },{ }) = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,{ },0x0)		= 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,{ SIGHUP|SIGINT|SIGQUIT|SIGKILL|SIGPIPE|SIGALRM|SIGTERM|SIGURG|SIGSTOP|SIGTSTP|SIGCONT|SIGCHLD|SIGTTIN|SIGTTOU|SIGIO|SIGXCPU|SIGXFSZ|SIGVTALRM|SIGPROF|SIGWINCH|SIGINFO|SIGUSR1|SIGUSR2 },{ }) = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,{ },0x0)		= 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,{ SIGHUP|SIGINT|SIGQUIT|SIGKILL|SIGPIPE|SIGALRM|SIGTERM|SIGURG|SIGSTOP|SIGTSTP|SIGCONT|SIGCHLD|SIGTTIN|SIGTTOU|SIGIO|SIGXCPU|SIGXFSZ|SIGVTALRM|SIGPROF|SIGWINCH|SIGINFO|SIGUSR1|SIGUSR2 },{ }) = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,{ },0x0)		= 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,{ SIGHUP|SIGINT|SIGQUIT|SIGKILL|SIGPIPE|SIGALRM|SIGTERM|SIGURG|SIGSTOP|SIGTSTP|SIGCONT|SIGCHLD|SIGTTIN|SIGTTOU|SIGIO|SIGXCPU|SIGXFSZ|SIGVTALRM|SIGPROF|SIGWINCH|SIGINFO|SIGUSR1|SIGUSR2 },{ }) = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,{ },0x0)		= 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,{ SIGHUP|SIGINT|SIGQUIT|SIGKILL|SIGPIPE|SIGALRM|SIGTERM|SIGURG|SIGSTOP|SIGTSTP|SIGCONT|SIGCHLD|SIGTTIN|SIGTTOU|SIGIO|SIGXCPU|SIGXFSZ|SIGVTALRM|SIGPROF|SIGWINCH|SIGINFO|SIGUSR1|SIGUSR2 },{ }) = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,{ },0x0)		= 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK,{ SIGHUP|SIGINT|SIGQUIT|SIGKILL|SIGPIPE|SIGALRM|SIGTERM|SIGURG|SIGSTOP|SIGTSTP|SIGCONT|SIGCHLD|SIGTTIN|SIGTTOU|SIGIO|SIGXCPU|SIGXFSZ|SIGVTALRM|SIGPROF|SIGWINCH|SIGINFO|SIGUSR1|SIGUSR2 },{ }) = 0 (0x0)
sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK,{ },0x0)		= 0 (0x0)
exit(0x1)					
process exit, rval = 1

                            I've verified that there are no duplicate firewall rules and NAT reflection is disabled.
                            The only reason it might be triggered with our installs more than others is because we use a lot of tables to filter traffic and these tables are constantly being updated.

                            F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • F
                              Flole @artooro
                              last edited by

                              @artooro Looks like exactly the same thing I'm seeing, except for me it happens instantly. I'm trying to spin up a VM now so I can test without rebooting, let's hope that the VM also shows this issue.

                              artooroA 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • artooroA
                                artooro @Flole
                                last edited by

                                Depends on if available CPU has anything to do with it. I've not switched to pfSense Plus on any VMs and I don't think I've seen this on any v2.6.0 CE installs yet.

                                Even disabling and re-enabling pf does not help, a full system reboot seems to be required.

                                F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • F
                                  Flole @artooro
                                  last edited by

                                  @artooro There was a new feature introduced in the latest plus for filtering based on MAC-Addresses. If that implementation broke something it won't be visible on previous versions.

                                  F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • F
                                    Flole @Flole
                                    last edited by

                                    I tried to replicate the issue on a VM but no luck there. I was obviously not able to replicate all Interfaces there so it might have something to do with that aswell. I tried to do simultaneous rule loading by firing multiple pfctl commands at the same time just to see if they maybe tangle with each other, but that was also unsuccessful.

                                    artooroA 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • artooroA
                                      artooro @Flole
                                      last edited by

                                      @flole I have noticed that editing interfaces can trigger it as well, but not consistently.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • F
                                        Flole @stephenw10
                                        last edited by

                                        Have you heard anything back from the developers yet? Just imagine the consequences if this bug hits in a critical environment, it should be fixed ASAP.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • J
                                          jacko
                                          last edited by

                                          I also just had this error on my SG-1100, nothing seemed to trigger it. I rebooted it, it worked for about 2 mins and then no network connection again. I could not ping anything including the router, 2nd reboot and so far it's still running.
                                          Was running PFBlockerNg 3.1.0_4, but I've now disabled it.

                                          Theses are the errors:

                                          There were error(s) loading the rules: pfctl: pfctl_rules - The line in question reads [0]: @ 2022-08-11 22:26:17
                                          There were error(s) loading the rules: pfctl: pfctl_rules - The line in question reads [0]: @ 2022-08-11 22:26:20
                                          There were error(s) loading the rules: pfctl: pfctl_rules - The line in question reads [0]: @ 2022-08-11 22:26:29
                                          There were error(s) loading the rules: pfctl: pfctl_rules - The line in question reads [0]: @ 2022-08-11 22:37:02

                                          F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • F
                                            Flole @jacko
                                            last edited by

                                            @jacko Just be glad that it failed in a "block-all" state for you. An "allow-all" state is much worse, especially if it's unnoticed....

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                            • First post
                                              Last post