pfSense bugtracker: Issueshttps://redmine.pfsense.org/https://redmine.pfsense.org/favicon.ico?16780521162023-12-15T20:06:02ZpfSense bugtracker
Redmine pfSense - Bug #15098 (New): Wireguard crashes on boot if PPPoE is the default gatewayhttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/150982023-12-15T20:06:02ZOskar Stroka
<p>This only seems to happen after a fresh boot, and only if any PPPoE connection is the default gateway. <br />Even the service watchdog can't bring wireguard back up. <br />The workaround is to go to "Status" - "Interfaces", disconnect the PPPoE line and enable it again. <br />After that wireguard will start without a problem.<br />I've only noticed this issue after moving to newer / better hardware.</p> pfSense - Bug #15084 (New): Upgrading an EFI system installed to ZFS mirror does not upgrade EFI ...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/150842023-12-11T16:56:18ZJim Pingle
<p>When an EFI system installed to a ZFS mirror is upgraded, the EFI loader is only updated on the first disk of the mirror (<code>/dev/gpt/efiboot0</code>).</p>
<p>If the system has EFI filesystems on the additional disks, they are not touched during upgrade.</p>
<p>Can be worked around by manually mounting the additional EFI partitions and copying the files.</p>
<p>For example, to update the loader on the second disk:</p>
<pre><code class="shell syntaxhl"><span class="c"># mount -t msdosfs /dev/gpt/efiboot1 /mnt/</span>
<span class="c"># cp -R /boot/efi/ /mnt</span>
<span class="c"># umount /mnt</span>
</code></pre>
<p>Note that systems may or may not actually have a proper EFI filesystem on the additional disks. See <a class="issue tracker-1 status-1 priority-5 priority-high4" title="Bug: Installing to ZFS mirror does not format or populate EFI partition on additional disks (New)" href="https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/15083">#15083</a></p>
<p>Marked as Plus 24.03/CE 2.8.0 but if it can be fixed in the pfSense-boot package the fix could be picked back to 23.09.1/2.7.2.</p> pfSense - Bug #15082 (New): Upgrade fails due to unmounted EFI filesystemhttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/150822023-12-11T14:10:15ZJim Pingle
<p>This may be related to <a class="issue tracker-1 status-1 priority-4 priority-default" title="Bug: Upgrade fails due to undersized EFI filesystem (New)" href="https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/15081">#15081</a> but it's not definite.</p>
<p>Some upgrades have failed in pfSense-boot if the EFI partition is not manually mounted first.</p>
<p>There are several reports of this where simply manually mounting the EFI partition before starting the upgrade allows it to complete. See <a class="external" href="https://www.reddit.com/r/PFSENSE/comments/18d887u/netgate_releases_pfsense_plus_software_version/kcjcktm/">https://www.reddit.com/r/PFSENSE/comments/18d887u/netgate_releases_pfsense_plus_software_version/kcjcktm/</a> for example.</p>
<p>Marked as Plus 24.03/CE 2.8.0 but if it can be fixed in the pfSense-boot package the fix could be picked back to 23.09.1/2.7.2.</p> pfSense - Bug #15081 (New): Upgrade fails due to undersized EFI filesystemhttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/150812023-12-11T14:01:54ZJim Pingle
<p>Some installations as recent as Plus 22.01 / CE 2.6.0 have EFI partitions that were created and/or populated by the old EFIFAT image method. This means that while the EFI <em>partition</em> is 200M, the EFI <em>filesystem</em> is only around 700KB. As a result, these installations are unable to upgrade to recent versions successfully as the loader cannot be updated.</p>
<p>This can be worked around by reformatting the EFI partition directly and copying the appropriate files back into place, as described in this forum post: <a class="external" href="https://forum.netgate.com/post/1140955">https://forum.netgate.com/post/1140955</a></p>
<pre><code class="shell syntaxhl"><span class="c"># mkdir -p /boot/efi</span>
<span class="c"># mount_msdosfs /dev/msdosfs/EFISYS /boot/efi</span>
<span class="c"># mkdir -p /tmp/efitmp</span>
<span class="c"># cp -Rp /boot/efi/* /tmp/efitmp</span>
<span class="c"># umount /boot/efi</span>
<span class="c"># newfs_msdos -F 32 -c 1 -L EFISYS /dev/msdosfs/EFISYS</span>
<span class="c"># mount_msdosfs /dev/msdosfs/EFISYS /boot/efi</span>
<span class="c"># cp -Rp /tmp/efitmp/* /boot/efi/</span>
</code></pre>
<p>There are some potential complications there. For example, the EFI filesystem may not be labeled that way, it could be <code>/dev/gpt/EFISYS</code> or it may have no label at all.</p>
<p>Marked as Plus 24.03/CE 2.8.0 but if it can be fixed in the pfSense-boot package the fix could be picked back to 23.09.1/2.7.2.</p> pfSense Packages - Feature #14863 (New): WireGuard suppport for aliaseshttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/148632023-10-11T07:53:52ZBob Dig
<p>Allow to use aliases in "Allowed IPs" in the WireGuard Peer config. That would match with the general ability to use aliases for static routes in pfSense, see <a class="external" href="https://forum.netgate.com/topic/183339/feature-request-support-for-aliases">https://forum.netgate.com/topic/183339/feature-request-support-for-aliases</a>.</p> pfSense Packages - Bug #13405 (New): Wireguard: The webgui becomes excessively slow to respond wi...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/134052022-08-11T09:12:04ZSteve Wheeler
<p>Webgui pages that include data from Wireguard can become very slow to respond with a large number of elements present (peers/tunnels).</p>
<p>Code that parses the output of 'wg show all dump' creates a delay.</p>
<p>For example we see delays of ~10s opening the Wireguard status page with 80 peers defined on a 6100.</p>
<p>This affects the peers, tunnels and status pages. And to a lesser extent the dashboard when the Wireguard widget is disaplayed.</p> pfSense Packages - Feature #13096 (Feedback): Improve robustness of Snort Rules Update Log size l...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/130962022-04-25T09:47:09ZBill Meeks
<p>Change the code for truncating the Snort Rules Update Log file when it exceeds the maximum configured size to be more robust by dropping the use of <em>unlink()</em> and use the method used in the Suricata package instead.</p> pfSense Packages - Bug #13095 (Feedback): Snort VRT change in Shared Object Rules path name resul...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/130952022-04-25T09:43:25ZBill Meeks
<p>Apparently the Snort Vulnerability Research Team recently altered part of the path name inside the Snort Rules Update archive. This results in failure of the Snort package code to properly extract and copy the Shared Object (SO) rules when performing the periodic rules update. A portion of the long directory path in the archive was changed from "x86_64" to "x86-64" (replaced the underscore with a dash).</p> pfSense Packages - Bug #12979 (Pull Request Review): Snort Rules Update Process Using Deprecated ...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/129792022-03-23T14:23:01ZBill Meeks
<p>Beginning around the first of March 2022, the Snort rules update package from the Snort VRT changed the subdirectory name for the precompiled Shared Object (SO) rules, in the archive, from "FreeBSD-12" to "FreeBSD-13". The Snort rules update code in the GUI parses the current FreeBSD version from the operating system, so since pfSense is still on FreeBSD 12.3, this results in the rules update code searching for a non-existent "FreeBSD-12" subdirectory in the archive when unpacking it. Until such time as pfSense moves to FreeBSD-13, this logic needs to be changed and the subdirectory name hard-coded to "FreeBSD-13".</p> pfSense Packages - Bug #12608 (New): WireGuard tunnels monitored by dpinger causing system to sto...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/126082021-12-16T15:14:54ZChristian McDonaldcmcdonald@netgate.com
<p>Current workaround is to disable gateway monitoring on WireGuard tunnel gateways.</p>
<p>(I will be noting observations here as I unpack this)</p> pfSense Packages - Feature #12526 (New): WireGuard Widgethttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/125262021-11-16T14:48:56ZB. B.
<p>Hellow,</p>
<p>I want to request a feature to the WireGuard widget, probably not so important for many others.<br />Do you think it is possible to add a "Widget title" to the WireGuard widget?<br />So we can change the name of the widget :)</p> pfSense Packages - Feature #12525 (New): WireGuard Tunnel restore configurationhttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/125252021-11-16T14:45:43ZB. B.
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>I see the function for downloading the configuration "files" in the WireGuard - Tunnels (nice to backup the config files)<br />But it would also be nice if it was possible to restore it.<br />It would save you a lot of time if we're unlucky and messed up the tunnel/peers. :)</p> pfSense Packages - Feature #12513 (New): WireGuard Utilization Status (Beyond Active Connection)https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/125132021-11-09T15:46:45ZJum Pers
<p>WG and pfSense are working very well together these days - thank you for the continued code and UI updates.</p>
<p>A feature that would be quite helpful on the SysAdmin side (for knowing when one can perform some client systems maintenance in scenarios where users can work whenever) is if, for both the WG Status page and (ideally) WG Widget (also), there was a set-able level (transfer threshold) that would indicate that a WG connection was actually being used rather than merely connected.</p>
<p>Perhaps this could be achieved by polling the transfer rates (RX, TX) every so many seconds (30s?) and subtracting the previous values from the present values (to see if they are above the threshold). In this way, setting a threshold for common RDP activity would provide a way of knowing whether the remote user was actively using their remote system.</p>
<p>Suggestion-wise, a colorized (green, yellow [optional: could be used for when close to threshold], red) icon, perhaps even just a small-to-medium sized (not-too-distracting) dot, to the right of the Peer name (or to the immediate right of the handshake icon if preferable) would do the trick. Or any such visual indicator.</p>
<p>Presently, it takes a lot of memorization ;) and page reloads to try to gauge which WG connections are actually being used.</p> pfSense - Todo #10199 (New): Improve Spanish translation interfacehttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/101992020-01-22T09:20:34ZAluisco Miguel Ricardo MastrapapfSense - Bug #6605 (Confirmed): rc.linkup logic issues with actions takenhttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/66052016-07-12T19:46:41ZChris Buechlercbuechler@gmail.com
<p>The actions taken by rc.linkup differ depending on whether the interface has a static or no IPv4 and IPv6 IP, and every other case (where either the v4 or v6 type of the interface is dynamic). <br /><a class="external" href="https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/blob/RELENG_2_3/src/etc/rc.linkup#L70">https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/blob/RELENG_2_3/src/etc/rc.linkup#L70</a></p>
<p>While there are no doubt some edge case reasons for that being the way it is, it's not sensible logic in general. The actions taken should be much closer to the same between them.</p>
<p>The only known problem this causes is with CARP. The interface_bring_down function removes CARP VIPs from the interface. If you have a static v4 and track6 LAN, this makes CARP get into dual master on WAN when the LAN loses link. What should happen is the CARP IP stays in INIT, which increments net.inet.carp.demotion by 240, which makes the secondary take over for the WAN VIPs. What actually happens is it increments demotion by 240, fails over to the secondary, then the VIP is deleted from the LAN on primary so demotion gets a +240 on the primary because the VIP is gone, and the primary takes back over master. Then you have dual master on WAN.</p>
<p>interface_bring_down should never be run on an interface where a CARP VIP resides to avoid this situation. It's questionable whether it's ever actually necessary or desirable when losing link on a NIC.</p>
<p>This is a potentially touchy area for regressions, so it'll need a good deal of review, testing and time to run in snapshots.</p>