Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

nixos/firewall: fix types in reverse path assertion #82767

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 18, 2020

Conversation

thefloweringash
Copy link
Member

Broken by 0f973e2 in #73533

The type of the checkReversePath option allows "strict" and "loose" as
well as boolean values.

Motivation for this change

#73533 (comment)

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

@nh2
Copy link
Contributor

nh2 commented Mar 18, 2020

The type of the checkReversePath option allows "strict" and "loose" as well as boolean values.

@thefloweringash I recommend to make that a comment straight on top of that assertion, because when I saw the diff I thought "that can be simplified to cfg.checkReversePath -> kernelHasRPFilter", and most people will think the same when scrolling by.

Broken by 0f973e2 in NixOS#73533

The type of the checkReversePath option allows "strict" and "loose" as
well as boolean values.
@thefloweringash
Copy link
Member Author

Updated with advice from @alyssais and @nbp

@nh2 nh2 merged commit 9d45737 into NixOS:master Mar 18, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants