Please enable DEBUG_IP_FIREWALL_USER in net/netfilter/x_tables.c as well
and retry. Results of the raw or mangle table would also be interesting
because they contain a different number of built-in chains.
Sorry it took so long, I was away. Adding this define does not seem to
do much
Meelis Roos wrote:
Then lets try something different. Please enable the
DEBUG_IP_FIREWALL_USER define in net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c and
post the results, if any.
On bootup I get this in dmesg (one Bad offset has been added):
ip_tables: (C) 2000-2006 Netfilter Core Team
Netfilter
Very strange, this means that the initial table data must somehow
be wrong, but for some reason it still seems to get past the
size and offset checks for the filter table. I can't see how
loading the filter table could fail after the Finished chain ..
messages without another message. Which
Meelis Roos wrote:
Very strange, this means that the initial table data must somehow
be wrong, but for some reason it still seems to get past the
size and offset checks for the filter table. I can't see how
loading the filter table could fail after the Finished chain ..
messages without
modprobe iptable_filter (errors out with Invalid Argument)
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 10.0.0.0/8 -j SNAT --to 192.168.1.1 (usually
errors out with Invalid Argument, sometimes succeeds, when succeeds then the
rule works fine)
Meelis, it would really help if you could try 2.6.16 and in
Meelis Roos wrote:
Meelis, it would really help if you could try 2.6.16 and in case
that doesn't work 2.6.15 to give an idea about whether this is a
recent regression or an old problem. We had a number of changes
in this area in the last two kernel versions that could be related.
Have not
Then lets try something different. Please enable the
DEBUG_IP_FIREWALL_USER define in net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c and
post the results, if any.
On bootup I get this in dmesg (one Bad offset has been added):
ip_tables: (C) 2000-2006 Netfilter Core Team
Netfilter messages via NETLINK v0.30.
Meelis Roos wrote:
Unfortunatlety, 2.6.15 does not boot on this machine so I'm locked out
remotely at the moment.
Here it my paranoid boot setup:
Thanks, but it's not much use here, since the machine is a PReP powerpc
machine that can boot one kernel from disk (directly loaded from boot
Hi Meelis,
Unfortunatlety, 2.6.15 does not boot on this machine so I'm locked out
remotely at the moment.
Here it my paranoid boot setup:
1. Use lilo -R new-kernel, to boot a kernel only
once and reboot the default kernel next time.
2. Force reboot on any panic after 10 seconds:
Unfortunatlety, 2.6.15 does not boot on this machine so I'm locked out
remotely at the moment.
Here it my paranoid boot setup:
Thanks, but it's not much use here, since the machine is a PReP powerpc
machine that can boot one kernel from disk (directly loaded from boot
partition, no fancy
Ingo Oeser wrote:
Hi Meelis,
Unfortunatlety, 2.6.15 does not boot on this machine so I'm locked out
remotely at the moment.
Here it my paranoid boot setup:
1. Use lilo -R new-kernel, to boot a kernel only
once and reboot the default kernel next time.
2. Force reboot on any
4. Put sysctl -w kernel.panic_on_oops=1 as early as possible
in your boot scripts[1].
You can as well boot with oops=panic
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Hi Andi,
Andi Kleen wrote:
4. Put sysctl -w kernel.panic_on_oops=1 as early as possible
in your boot scripts[1].
You can as well boot with oops=panic
Only on x86_64 as of Linux 2.6.16.
But maybe this could be put into kernel/panic.c instead :-)
Regards
Ingo Oeser
-
To unsubscribe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6613
Summary: iptables broken on 32-bit PReP (ARCH=ppc)
Kernel Version: 2.6.17-rc4
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Submitter: [EMAIL
Andrew Morton wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6613
Summary: iptables broken on 32-bit PReP (ARCH=ppc)
Kernel Version: 2.6.17-rc4
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Meelis, it would really help if you could try 2.6.16 and in case
that doesn't work 2.6.15 to give an idea about whether this is a
recent regression or an old problem. We had a number of changes
in this area in the last two kernel versions that could be related.
Yes, I'm still compiling 2.6.16,
16 matches
Mail list logo
