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

Flole

@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.

Flole

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.

artooro

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

Flole

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.

jacko

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

Flole

@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....

stephenw10

Mmm, unfortunately this is unhelpful:
ioctl(3,DIOCXBEGIN,0xbfbfd9d0) ERR#16 'Device busy'

The issue has already happened and pf is no longer responding to pfctl. What we'd need there is to see the truss output from the first invocation of pfctl after boot. But that's not easy.
We are looking at it but we've not been able to replicate it locally. Yet.

I opened a bug to track it. Add any new info you have there:
https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/13408

Steve

Flole

@stephenw10 Maybe it would help to add additional debug output in pf's code? Is it clear where the wrong branch is taken/where the error is actually thrown? If that's unclear it's probably a good idea to figure that out first. One possible way is probably the one I described above, but is there another one? If it's clear what state the firewall ends up in then it's easier to figure out potential ways how it could end up in that state.

artooro

@stephenw10 thanks, what I'll attempt tomorrow is to edit https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/blob/60a2fa6b6f1a59f3f86933265fbb48e25f652bfc/src/etc/inc/filter.inc#L527 to use truss and output to a log file, and see if we can get something helpful there.
As I have a couple of systems where it's pretty easy to reproduce.

Flole

@artooro I'd make a copy of every rules-file that's loaded there aswell. Just to see if loading those files in the same order causes the issue.

Flole

After some reboots it started working again for me aswell. I noticed that my GIF tunnels did not come up this time. Maybe it is related? Are others affected by this also using (multiple) GIF tunnels?

ChrisJenk

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

After some reboots it started working again for me aswell. I noticed that my GIF tunnels did not come up this time. Maybe it is related? Are others affected by this also using (multiple) GIF tunnels?

I have a single GIF tunnel (a 6in4 for HE Tunnelbroker).

stephenw10

Hmm, that could be a clue. Though I haven't seen it on any test box I have that has GIF tunnels.So maybe something else required on that specifically.

artooro

I've been able to capture the initial pfctl that fails via truss which I've attached here:
1-truss_pfctl_1660664796.txt

I don't have any GIF tunnels, but do use WireGuard interfaces.

And if anyone is interested in capturing this themselves, what I did is edit /etc/src/filter.inc and commented out line 527 and added the following quick and dirty code:

		$_grbg = exec("/usr/bin/truss /sbin/pfctl -o basic -f {$g['tmp_path']}/rules.debug 2>&1", $rules_error, $rules_loading);
		$rval = 0;
		if ($rules_error[count($rules_error)-1] == "process exit, rval = 1") {
			$rval = 1;
			file_notice("filter_load", sprintf("pfctl process exit, rval = 1"), "Filter Reload", "");
		}
		$date = new DateTime();
		$truss_filename = "/root/" . $rval . "-truss_pfctl_" . $date->getTimestamp() . ".txt";
		file_put_contents($truss_filename, implode("\n", $rules_error));

Flole

@artooro Maybe you should post the one that ran right before it aswell, just in case something there was already messed up. But it looks promising to me, I believe @kprovost is the pfctl and Kernel expert, maybe he can spot a potential bug based on that truss-output?

Keep in mind that if you're using the captive portal pfctl is invoked at (at least) one other location aswell.

stephenw10

Yup I pinged him. Late where he is though, I hope he's enjoying a beer by now.

artooro

@flole I checked and the previous run is the same as all the successful invocations.

kprovost

@artooro Can you add an pfctl -x loud invocation before that truss'd pfctl?

That truss output was already more illuminating, but I'm still not able to reproduce anything like this issue.

It seems to fail with ioctl(3,DIOCADDRULENV,0xbfbfdae4) ERR#16 'Device busy', after it's already added a bunch of other rules without issue.
EBUSY almost certainly means we've failed in pf_ioctl_addrule(), when checking ticket numbers.

So I'm guessing we're seeing a race condition here, where something else (possibly another pfctl, possibly something else that adds rules or addresses) is running at the same time. The pfctl -x loud should let us work out if it's a ruleset or a pool ticket. That in turn might give us a hint.

I've seen mention of pfBlockerNG, is everyone affected running that?

ChrisJenk

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

I've seen mention of pfBlockerNG, is everyone affected running that?

I'm not even sure what pfBlockerNG is. I'm not consciously running it (unless it is something that always runs as standard).

stephenw10

It's a package. You have to actively install it.

Steve