Linux-Networking Digest #855, Volume #9 Tue, 12 Jan 99 00:13:53 EST
Contents:
ppp-2.3.5 compile problem ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win98 - Linux [Which FAST protocol ?] (Athan)
Re: How do I deny ip packets? (Luca Filipozzi)
Please help: DHCP, Red Hat 5.2 and Kickstart (DIAL|MB|Higher Powered Software - Ed
Finch)
Setting up a caching DNS server in Linux - can't find server name (Erik)
sendmail and smbd are SO slow on boot (Chris)
Re: Routing using RedHat 5.2 ("Jaspreet Singh")
Re: Routing with RedHat 5.2 (Chris Goebel)
Routing using RedHat 5.2 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Did PPP eat my routing table? (Vincent Zweije)
Re: Firewall/Routing question (Vincent Zweije)
Re: Routing, Dialup, Will work? (Vincent Zweije)
Re: Remotely killing X-server - killing zombies explained (Vincent Zweije)
fake an internet connection from win98 box to linux box? ("Vance Greenway")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ppp-2.3.5 compile problem
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 21:53:10 GMT
Hi,
I am having problem successfully compiling ppp-2.3.5 with
my redhat 5.2 kernel 2.0.36-07. Doing a "make modules" gives the
following error messages and aborts.
n function `ppp_tty_close_local':
ppp.c:761: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c: In function `ppp_tty_open':
ppp.c:792: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c:838: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c:856: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c: In function `ppp_tty_wakeup_code':
ppp.c:925: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c:927: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c: In function `ppp_rcv_rx':
ppp.c:1208: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c:1214: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c:1222: structure has no member named `ddinfo'
ppp.c: In function `rcv_proto_ip':
ppp.c:1234: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c: In function `rcv_proto_ipx':
ppp.c:1247: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c: In function `ppp_proto_ccp':
ppp.c:1422: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c:1438: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c: In function `ppp_doframe':
ppp.c:1635: `DECOMP_OK' undeclared (first use this function)
ppp.c:1635: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
ppp.c:1635: for each function it appears in.)
ppp.c: In function `ppp_set_compression':
ppp.c:2203: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c:2215: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c:2225: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c: In function `ppp_tty_ioctl':
ppp.c:2270: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c:2370: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c:2374: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c:2420: structure has no member named `ddinfo'
ppp.c:2421: structure has no member named `ddinfo'
ppp.c: In function `ppp_dev_xmit_ip':
ppp.c:2925: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c:2927: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c: In function `ppp_dev_xmit_ipx':
ppp.c:3013: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c:3015: cannot convert to a pointer type
ppp.c: In function `ppp_dev_xmit':
ppp.c:3124: structure has no member named `ddinfo'
ppp.c: In function `ppp_alloc':
ppp.c:3250: incompatible types in assignment
make[2]: *** [ppp.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.0.36/drivers/net'
make[1]: *** [modules] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.0.36/drivers'
make: *** [modules] Error 2
Any help will be highly appreciated.
TIA
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Athan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win98 - Linux [Which FAST protocol ?]
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 21:05:12 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you I'll try it
Netbeui is supported by samba corect ??
ipx is novel i think
I'll try them
Thank you Jorge
Athan
Jorge Herrera wrote:
> With Windows '98 and Linux, the best IS TCP/IP, but since you mentioned that
> is not an option, try using ipx/spx or Netbeui. MARS implements ipx/spx and
> samba implements Netbeui.
>
> -Jorge
>
> Athan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Hello
> >
> >I have a win98 and Linux box with 2 isa 3c509tp cards,
> >which protocol should I use for fast connections except TCP/IP
> >
> >Thank you
> >Athan
> >
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luca Filipozzi)
Subject: Re: How do I deny ip packets?
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 20:07:09 -0800
In article <lKzm2.3024$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> I am running a linux box that serves as a router and ip firewall for my
> other computers. I can get it to route prorperly, and the firewall works.
> However, I need to deny outgoing traffic as well ... cant get it to work.
> What do i need to do?
>
> -troubled
>
>
>
Are you using ipfwadm? It has a -w option that allows you to specify the
interface. For example, if eth0 is connected to the Internet and eth1 to
the local LAN, then you could use ipfwadm like
# deny all incoming packets from LAN
ipfwadm -I -p deny -W eth1
# allow certain protocols to come in (like http/udp)
ipfwadm -I -a allow -S ${eth1_network}/24 http -D 0.0.0.0/0 -W eth1 -P
udp
Don't forget to allow these packets out of the firewall's eth0 interface
and to forward them between the eth0 and eth1 interfaces.
The right combination of multiple ipfwadm commands using the -I
(incoming), -O (outgoing) and -F (forwarding)options will allow you to
specify exactly which protocols the firewall can receive (in) and
transmit (out) on each interface and which protocols to forward between
the interfaces.
Hope this helps.
--
Luca Filipozzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DIAL|MB|Higher Powered Software - Ed Finch)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Please help: DHCP, Red Hat 5.2 and Kickstart
Date: 11 Jan 1999 22:00:23 GMT
Greetings!
I'm trying to use Red Hat 5.2's Kickstart process to build
my Beowulf cluster. DHCP seems to negotiate sucesssfully, but
I can't an alternate kickstart filename passed to the client.
In fact, the client always looks for 10.0.0.200:/kickstart
/etc/dhcpd.conf looks like this:
default-lease-time 300;
option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0;
option broadcast-address 10.0.0.255;
option routers 10.0.0.200;
option domain-name-servers 10.0.0.200;
option domain-name "hitc.com";
filename "/redhat-5.2/cdrom/dhcp.kickstart";
subnet 10.0.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 {
range 10.0.0.1 10.0.0.100;
}
and /redhat-5.2/cdrom/dhcp.kickstart looks like:
leng en
network --bootproto dhcp
nfs --server 10.0.0.200 --dir /redhat-5.2
keyboard us
zerombr yes
clearpart --all
part /boot --size 10
part swap --size 127
part / --size 1 --grow
timezone US/Eastern
rootpw --iscrypted XwOmhs6zTSKok
lilo
%packages
@ Base
@ Networked Workstation
@ C Development
@ Development Libraries
@ C++ Development
Beowulf is waiting - please help! :-)
Best regards,
Ed
Q: Why do PCs have a reset button on the front?
A: Because they are expected to run Microsoft operating systems.
------------------------------
From: Erik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Setting up a caching DNS server in Linux - can't find server name
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 22:41:36 -0500
I am attempting to set up a caching DNS server in RH 5.1 I have read the
HOWTO (what I could understand), and set up the following files: When I
run nslookup, it says: *** Can't find server name for 127.0.0.1: Server
failed
My files are as follows:
/etc/named.conf:
/*
* A simple BIND 8 configuration
*/
options {
directory "/var/named";
};
#logging {
# category lame-servers { null; };
# category cname { null; };
#};
zone "." in {
type hint;
file "root.cache";
};
zone "0.0.127.in-addr.arpa" in {
type master;
file "named.local";
};
/etc/resolv.conf
domain .
nameserver 127.0.0.1
nameserver 207.217.77.82
nameserver 207.217.120.83
search earthlink.net #EzPPP Temp Entry
nameserver 207.217.126.81 #EzPPP Temp Entry
nameserver 207.217.77.82 #EzPPP Temp Entry
nameserver 207.217.120.83 #EzPPP Temp Entry
/var/named/root.cache
; <<>> DiG 8.1 <<>> @207.217.77.82
; (1 server found)
;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
;; got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 10
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 13, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 13
;; QUERY SECTION:
;; ., type = NS, class = IN
;; ANSWER SECTION:
. 3d19h35m40s IN NS M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 3d19h35m40s IN NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 3d19h35m40s IN NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 3d19h35m40s IN NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 3d19h35m40s IN NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 3d19h35m40s IN NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 3d19h35m40s IN NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 3d19h35m40s IN NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 3d19h35m40s IN NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 3d19h35m40s IN NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 3d19h35m40s IN NS J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 3d19h35m40s IN NS K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
. 3d19h35m40s IN NS L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 6d22h59m36s IN A 202.12.27.33
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 6d23h34m52s IN A 198.41.0.4
H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 6d23h34m52s IN A 128.63.2.53
B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 6d23h34m52s IN A 128.9.0.107
C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 6d23h34m52s IN A 192.33.4.12
D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 6d23h34m52s IN A 128.8.10.90
E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 6d23h34m52s IN A 192.203.230.10
I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 6d23h34m52s IN A 192.36.148.17
F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 6d23h34m52s IN A 192.5.5.241
G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 6d23h34m52s IN A 192.112.36.4
J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 6d22h59m36s IN A 198.41.0.10
K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 6d22h59m36s IN A 193.0.14.129
L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 6d22h59m36s IN A 198.32.64.12
;; Total query time: 5287 msec
;; FROM: localhost.localdomain to SERVER: 207.217.77.82
;; WHEN: Sun Jan 10 03:00:40 1999
;; MSG SIZE sent: 17 rcvd: 436
/var/named/named.local
@ IN SOA ns.linux.bogus. hostmaster.linux.bogus.
(
1 ; Serial
28800 ; Refresh
7200 ; Retry
604800 ; Expire
86400) ; Minimum TTL
NS ns.linux.bogus.
1 PTR localhost.
I really don't have any idea what I'm doing, so any help would be
greatly appreciated. Thanks!!!
Erik
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: sendmail and smbd are SO slow on boot
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 03:22:11 GMT
For whatever reason, sendmail takes about 4 minutes to load during
boot and the smb daemon takes a good 10-15 minutes...it's crazy.
Any help on these issues would be great.
(RedHat 5.1 Manhattan, 2.0.35, PCMCIA 3Com Etherlink)
------------------------------
From: "Jaspreet Singh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Routing using RedHat 5.2
Date: 11 Jan 1999 22:11:01 GMT
Did you enable IP forwarding?
Jaspreet Singh
www.sangoma.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in article
<77drbg$bm2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> No matter what I've tried, I cannot get my machine to route packets
> between the two ethernet interfaces. Hosts on both networks and other
> networks can be pinged from my Linux machine. I have recompiled the
> kernel for firewalling and have issued appropriate ipfwadm commands from
> /sbin. I am not masquerading or proxying. My routing table appears to
> accurately reflect the network configuration. I cannot ping the
> ethernet "internet" card of my Linux machine from the "local" network.
> Here is what my test network, basically, looks like;
>
> ^
> |
> _______|________
> | eth0 |
> | a.b.c.155 |gateway=a.b.c.254 (default)
> |----------------|
> | eth1 |
> | 192.168.48.155 |
> |________________|gateway=a.b.c.155
> |
> |
> |
> _______^________
> | eth0 |
> | 192.168.48.154 |
> |________________|gateway=192.168.48.155
>
> Routing Table
> ---------------------------------
> |a.b.c.0 |0.0.0.0| eth0 |
> |192.168.48.0|0.0.0.0| eth1 |
> |127.0.0.0 |0.0.0.0| lo |
> |0.0.0.0 |a.b.c.254| eth0 |
> ---------------------------------
>
> The sole purpose of this Linux-based machine is to run as a firewall.
> Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
>
> R O B E R T
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
------------------------------
From: Chris Goebel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Routing with RedHat 5.2
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 17:44:05 -0500
Its been awhile since I setup our firewall but my script that doesn't
"filter"
simply issues the ipfwadm command AND some arp commands. These
arp commands allow machines on the same net to think the Linux box
is the proper receipiant of those packets.
The commands you need to issue are:
arp -i eth0 -Ds 192.168.48.155 eth0 pub
arp -i eth1 -Ds a.b.c.155 eth1 pub
Be warned that if a machine on a.b.c net had a direct connection to the
192.168.48 net
then you will have to reset them when the firewall is placed in between. The
arp address
of the ethernet cards is memory cached.
Also make sure your Linux routing table has a default route.
Chris Goebel
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No matter what I try, I cannot get my machine to route packets
> between the two ethernet interfaces. Hosts on both networks and other
> networks can be pinged from my Linux machine. I have recompiled the
> kernel for firewalling and have issued appropriate ipfwadm commands from
> /sbin. I am not masquerading or proxying. My routing table appears to
> accurately reflect the network configuration. I cannot ping the
> ethernet "internet" card of my Linux machine from the "local" network.
> I recently custom-installed RedHat 5.2. Here is what my test network,
> basically, looks like;
>
> ^
> |
> _______|________
> | eth0 |
> | a.b.c.155 |gateway=a.b.c.254 (default)
> |----------------|
> | eth1 |
> | 192.168.48.155 |
> |________________|gateway=a.b.c.155
> |
> |
> |
> _______^________
> | eth0 |
> | 192.168.48.154 |
> |________________|gateway=192.168.48.155
>
> Routing Table
> ---------------------------------
> |a.b.c.0 |0.0.0.0| eth0 |
> |192.168.48.0|0.0.0.0| eth1 |
> |127.0.0.0 |0.0.0.0| lo |
> |0.0.0.0 |a.b.c.254|eth0 |
> ---------------------------------
>
> The sole purpose of this Linux-based machine is to run as a firewall.
>
> Any suggestions would be deeply appreciated. Thanks.
>
> R O B E R T
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Routing using RedHat 5.2
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 21:44:16 GMT
No matter what I've tried, I cannot get my machine to route packets
between the two ethernet interfaces. Hosts on both networks and other
networks can be pinged from my Linux machine. I have recompiled the
kernel for firewalling and have issued appropriate ipfwadm commands from
/sbin. I am not masquerading or proxying. My routing table appears to
accurately reflect the network configuration. I cannot ping the
ethernet "internet" card of my Linux machine from the "local" network.
Here is what my test network, basically, looks like;
^
|
_______|________
| eth0 |
| a.b.c.155 |gateway=a.b.c.254 (default)
|----------------|
| eth1 |
| 192.168.48.155 |
|________________|gateway=a.b.c.155
|
|
|
_______^________
| eth0 |
| 192.168.48.154 |
|________________|gateway=192.168.48.155
Routing Table
=================================
|a.b.c.0 |0.0.0.0| eth0 |
|192.168.48.0|0.0.0.0| eth1 |
|127.0.0.0 |0.0.0.0| lo |
|0.0.0.0 |a.b.c.254| eth0 |
=================================
The sole purpose of this Linux-based machine is to run as a firewall.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
R O B E R T
============= Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ============
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------------
From: Vincent Zweije <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Did PPP eat my routing table?
Date: 11 Jan 1999 12:12:17 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bill Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
|| I have a three station network at home.. Thetageek (192.168.1.4) is
|| W98/RH5.2,
|| betageek (192.168.1.3) is RH5.0, and geekdom (192.168.1.1) is RH5.2.
|| They talked
|| and played nice no matter what OS I used on thetageek till I got PPP
|| running on
|| geekdom. Now thetageek and betageek talk fine (regardless of
|| thetageek's OS), but
|| geekdom's being unsociable.
|| If you prefer netstat -rn, betageek's looks like this (ditto spacing):
[Reformatted. Please use a fixed width font and don't word wrap.]
|| Kernel IP routing table
|| Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface
|| 127.0.0.1 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 3584 0 0 lo
|| 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 1500 0 0 eth0
|| 127.0.0.0 - 255.0.0.0 ! - - - -
||
|| In both cases, the 127.0.0.1 line is missing from geekdom and 127.0.0.0
|| has the lo interface instead of a -
In that case, the Flags field must be saying 'U', as in the eth0 line,
and several other fields may be different as well. I don't think you're
being precise enough.
Why are you giving the configuration on betageek, when you should be
suspecting geekdom, since that's where you added PPP?
[Snip betageek's ifconfig output.]
|| I've compared geekdom's ifconfig -a output and other than hardware
|| address, ip address and items specific to each card, it's identical.
Your 'Flags' mistake above suggests there may be more differences than
you're telling. Show geekdom's configuration.
|| I've tried dropping and adding routes (I'm not sure that's effective
|| with the loopback), rebooting, modifying routes, etc. No luck. Does
|| anyone have any idea what's going on?
You got no luck... What effects *did* you get?
Volunteer some more information. Vincent.
--
Vincent Zweije <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "If you're flamed in a group you
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~zweije/> | don't read, does anybody get burnt?"
[Xhost should be taken out and shot] | -- Paul Tomblin on a.s.r.
------------------------------
From: Vincent Zweije <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Firewall/Routing question
Date: 11 Jan 1999 12:34:37 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Skeeter Hartwig
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|| (*.*.40.1) <-(to the internet)
|| |
|| (*.*.40.76) <-(new firewall machine)
|| / | \
|| (*.*.40.77) (*.*.40.78) (*.*.40.79) <-(machines behind new fw)
||
|| The *.* represents the same numbers in all of those machines, btw.
||
|| Now, I've got all my filtering and forwarding rules in and everything
|| seems to be functioning with small exceptions. The rules are working
|| as planned for packets that originate from the machines behind my new
|| firewall. The problem I am having is that it appears that packets
|| originating from the 'outside world' and coming in to the machines
|| behind the firewall are going straight from *.*.40.1 to the machines
|| behind the firewall, bypassing the firewall machine and its filtering
|| rules completely. I don't know how much it matters, but I'll add in
|| further info that if I do a traceroute from one of those machines
|| behind my firewall to someplace on the internet, I see my firewall
|| machine, *.*.40.76, as the first hop. However, if I do a traceroute
|| from a machine somewhere on the net to one of the machines behind the
|| fw, my firewall machine doesn't appear at all in the hops, at the end
|| it just goes from *.*.40.1 to the end machine.
||
|| I've got two NICs in the firewall machine. The first one, eth0, is
|| connected to a second 'local' network of machines on the 192.168.0.0
|| network, and the firewall machine is also performing masqing duties
|| for those machines (That part is working great btw, you can ignore
|| eth0 in the firewall machine for this discussion). The second NIC,
|| eth1, is connected to both the pipe leading out to *.*.40.1 and to the
|| chain of other machines I'm trying to firewall in (It's a COAX NIC and
|| the fw and other machines are all daisy-chained together, with the fw
|| machine being the first one on the string as the pipe comes in from
|| the internet).
|| In those tables, the *.* in some of the addresses represents the same
|| numbers mentioned above. I would appreciate any help anyone might
|| have to offer so that I can get packets coming from the outside world
|| to be forced to go through the firewall machine before going to my
|| machines behind it, instead of bypassing the firewall and going
|| straight to them.
The router (!) is sending packets directly to all machines on the
*.*.40.0 network. You must modify the routing table on the router so
that it uses a gateway route, even for the local network.
Currently, it probably looks like:
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags ... Iface
--> *.*.4.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U ... eth0
mumble.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U ... eth1
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U ... lo
0.0.0.0 mumble.1 0.0.0.0 UG ... eth1
but you want it to look like:
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags ... Iface
--> *.*.4.76 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH ... eth0
--> *.*.4.0 *.*.4.76 255.255.255.0 UG ... eth0
mumble.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U ... eth1
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U ... lo
0.0.0.0 mumble.1 0.0.0.0 UG ... eth1
Apart from that, a firewall gives far more protection when you physically
seperate the outside and the inside. As it is now, your inside hosts
could directly send to the router, and bypass the firewall, just as the
router is doing in the other direction.
Furthermore, all external traffic is passing the *.*.4.0 ethernet wire
twice: once from the router to the firewall, then from the firewall
to the local host. And conversely, of course. You're doubling the
(external) traffic on that wire!
I won't go as far as to say that a firewall is useless without physical
network separation, but many others would. Whatever, unless you keep a
very close eye on the routing tables of the router and all local hosts,
there is no added security.
--
Vincent Zweije <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "If you're flamed in a group you
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~zweije/> | don't read, does anybody get burnt?"
[Xhost should be taken out and shot] | -- Paul Tomblin on a.s.r.
------------------------------
From: Vincent Zweije <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Routing, Dialup, Will work?
Date: 11 Jan 1999 13:38:17 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jordy Leduc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|| Windows machine (A), with valid static IP address connected to Linux box
|| (B) with valid static IP address, connected to Windows 95 machine (C)
|| with static valid IP address, with PPP dynamic IP connection to the
|| internet, Now, is it possible to setup the first machine (A) to use DNS
|| services from box (B) and box (B) will route the DNS request (IP) to
|| machine (C), and then forward it to the PPP connection on box (C). I can
|| ping all three points from box (A), I can ping box (B),(C), and the PPP
|| connection on box (C), but not to the outside. Do I need to set up a
|| route somewhere or is this even possible?..
Does "the outside" know that packets for your valid static IPs are to
be sent via C's dynamic IP?
Ciao. Vincent.
--
Vincent Zweije <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "If you're flamed in a group you
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~zweije/> | don't read, does anybody get burnt?"
[Xhost should be taken out and shot] | -- Paul Tomblin on a.s.r.
------------------------------
From: Vincent Zweije <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,linux.redhat.misc
Subject: Re: Remotely killing X-server - killing zombies explained
Date: 11 Jan 1999 16:46:41 +0100
* Removed invalid newsgroup comp.os.linux
* Added newsgroup comp.os.linux.misc
* Followups to comp.os.linux.misc and linux.redhat.misc
In article <tS6m2.17834$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mike
burrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|| In article <77asa2$nil$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, A.G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|| wrote:
|| >I did "kill -s $DIFFERENT_NUMBERS 644", and most of them didn't do
|| >anythig, but I think that "kill -s 9 644" turned 644 into a "zombie", and
|| >so it did with all other processes, belonging to X. But the screen on the
|| >hung machine didn't change.
||
|| IINM, zombie processes will eventually be killed off by the kernel by
|| killing their parents. It's probably best (and fastest) to just kill their
|| parents yourself. To find their parenst, do a 'ps fax' and track down
|| where this zombie X is. Starting X (say, through 'startx') usually
|| launches a bunch of different scripts and stuff to load X, so the actual X
|| server will probably be nested pretty deeply. Anyway you may see something
|| like this:
To kill this misconception before it starts: zombies aren't killed by
the kernel.
In fact, zombies can't be killed at all, with whatever signal; they're
already dead. They don't hold any resources except a slot in the process
table. There's no reason to want them out of the process table except
to free the slot.
A zombie is a dead process, the parent of which hasn't asked for its
exit status yet. It is up to the parent to ask for the exit status of
a process by doing a wait()-like system call.
When a process exits, the kernel sends a SIGCHLD to its parent to
signal that a child has exited. Sometimes, the parent process misses
this signal. You can try to send this signal manually, and hope that
the parent obediently does a wait(), thus removing the zombied child.
Try "kill -CHLD <parent-pid>".
When a parent exits without wait()ing for a child process, the child
process gets a new parent process. The new parent process is always
process 1, the mother of all process: init.
Init wait()s for its children. If you kill the parent of a zombie,
the zombie moves to init. Init then wait()s for it, and the zombie
disappears from the process table. This is why is seems as if killing
the parent actually kills the zombie, but it's appearances only.
|| 1556 1 S 0:00 -bash
|| 1802 1 S 0:00 \_ sh /usr/X11R6/bin/startx -- -bpp 16
|| 1803 1 S 0:00 \_ xinit /home/mikpos/.xinitrc -- -bpp 16
|| 1804 ? Z 0:00 \_ /usr/X11R6/bin/Xwrapper :0 -bpp 16
|| 1806 1 S 0:00 \_ wmaker
|| 1813 1 S 0:00 \_ rxvt -transparent -bg black -fg white +sb
|| 1814 p0 S 0:00 \_ bash
|| 1816 p0 R 0:00 \_ ps fax
If you ever see this situation (however improbable), try:
kill -CHLD 1803
and see if xinit cleans up the situation. It logs you out since the X
server has gone away.
Actually, the X server is gone already, so wmaker will be exiting shortly
because it lost its connection to the X server. If xinit didn't notice
the X server dying, it will surely notice wmaker dying.
Bah. I bit again. This must be in innumerable unix text books. :-)
Ciao. Vincent.
--
Vincent Zweije <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "If you're flamed in a group you
<http://www.xs4all.nl/~zweije/> | don't read, does anybody get burnt?"
[Xhost should be taken out and shot] | -- Paul Tomblin on a.s.r.
------------------------------
From: "Vance Greenway" <@ricochet.net>
Subject: fake an internet connection from win98 box to linux box?
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 14:50:13 -0800
i have a linux box setup to be an internet server when my connection is
ready in a month or so. in the meantime, i am doing some java development
on win98 that will be connecting to a postgresql database on the linux box.
is there a way to fake an internet connection between the two boxes so that
an applet running on my win98 machine is accessing the postgresql database
on the linux machine?
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.networking) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Networking Digest
******************************
