This was posted to linux-kernel mailing list in the last day or so. It
looks like changing one word in ip_masq.c is all that it takes. I haven't
tried it, but it looks logical to me :)
Dave.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Aug 1 12:54:31 1998
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 00:07:32 -0400
From: Aaron Tiensivu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [ip-masq] De-SPAM my console
I don't think having this printk set at level "Warning" is justified to spam
my console.. it seems to occur whenever you get a failed checksum from a buggy
VJ module and/or line noise..
--- linux/net/ipv4/ip_masq.c.virgin Fri Jul 31 18:34:55 1998
+++ linux/net/ipv4/ip_masq.c Fri Jul 31 22:43:26 1998
@@ -1528,7 +1528,7 @@
if (csum_tcpudp_magic(iph->saddr, iph->daddr, len,
iph->protocol, skb->csum))
{
- IP_MASQ_WARNING( "failed TCP/UDP checksum from
%d.%d.%d.%d!\n",
+ IP_MASQ_DEBUG(2, "failed TCP/UDP checksum from
+%d.%d.%d.%d!\n",
NIPQUAD(iph->saddr));
return -1;
}
On Sat, 1 Aug 1998, Fuzzy Fox wrote:
> Taren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Jul 31 10:38:35 c719777-a kernel: IP_MASQ:failed TCP/UDP checksum from
>209.144.168.10!
> >
> > I don't know if these messages are something I need to worry about or not.
>
> I find these messages quite annoying. I'll probably go in and hack them
> out of my kernel one of these days.
>
> Why do the masq developers feel that this condition needs to be logged
> so strongly? The rest of the TCP stack has never registered such a
> warning so loudly; why is it so important when masqing?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For daily digest info, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
