On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 10:05 -0800, Dale Bewley wrote: Yes, you are absolutely right. If the bridge module is not loaded, we should act the same as if bridge packets would not be forwarded to iptables. How about this patch: From: David Lutterkort <lutter(a)redhat.com&gt; Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:28:56 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] * src/dutil_linux.c (bridge_nf_call_iptables): no bridge module, no problem If the bridge module is not loaded, just report that no bridge packets are sent to iptables. --- src/dutil_linux.c | 5 +++++ 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/dutil_linux.c b/src/dutil_linux.c index e5b1dc7..5054958 100644 --- a/src/dutil_linux.c +++ b/src/dutil_linux.c @@ -163,6 +163,11 @@ bool bridge_nf_call_iptables(struct netcf *ncf) { ERR_NOMEM(r < 0, ncf); proc = fopen(path, "r"); + /* If the file does not exist, assume the bridge module is not loaded + * and just report that no bridge packets will hit iptables */ + if (proc == NULL && errno == ENOENT) + goto error; + ERR_THROW(proc == NULL, ncf, EFILE, "can not open %s: %s", path, strerror(errno)); c = fgetc(proc); -- 1.6.2.5