Re: [gentoo-user] IPTABLES syntax change?

[Graham Murray]

Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> writes:

> The 'conntrack' module is supposed to be a superset of 'state', so most
> things should be compatible. You really have two warnings there; the
> first is for the state -> conntrack switch, and the second is because
> you're missing the --state flag in your rules.
>
> In your example, you turn on the state matching,
>
>   iptables -A TCP_IN -p tcp -m state -m tcp -j UNSOLICITED
>
> but you don't specify *which* state(s) you want to match. It wants you
> to specify --state SOMETHING. I'd guess that it used to interpret "no
> state" as "any state."

The problem is not really the OP's fault. The problem is that if you
have tables with the form "-m state --state XXX" at the point you
upgrade, iptables-save (quite possibly called automatically by
/etc/init.d/iptables stop) will save it as "-m state --state" - ie
'forgetting' which state(s) the rule applies to. 

The solution is to either change all your rules to use "-m conntrack
--ctstate XXX" before upgrading or editing /var/lib/iptables/rules-save
to globally replace '-m state' by '-m conntrack' and '--state' by
'--ctstate' prior to the upgrade and (at least temporarily) edit
/etc/conf.d/iptables to set SAVE_ON_STOP="no". The same will also need
to be done with ip6tables if you use that.

I think that this is a serious enough change in behaviour that an elog
warning should have been issued.