On Mon, 2019-02-25 at 07:14 -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>
> On the "lite" machine I have
> 5.2.0.4.
~sigh~ Which is one single bugfix release behind what I need.
Cheers,
b.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
On Wed, 2018-08-01 at 14:27 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>
So, getting back to this...
> Any results with this patch? I would like to include this fix in
> 5.2.0.5.
On the shorewall (i.e. not the "lite") machine, I have 5.2.0.5
installed that includes this patch. On the "lite" machine I have
On 07/31/2018 08:26 AM, Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> In addition to that issue, the preceding line was incorrect ('qt' was
> incorrect). Revised second patch attached.
>
Any results with this patch? I would like to include this fix in 5.2.0.5.
Thanks,
-Tom
--
Tom Eastep\ Q: What do you
On 07/31/2018 05:19 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 10:48 +0200, Matt Darfeuille wrote:
>>
>> The attached patch (MUTEX_ON_TAKE1.patch) includes:
>> - MUTEX_ON.patch
>> - MUTEX_ON1.patch
>> - The above correction (changing 'openwrt' to 'lockbin')
>> - My take on fixing the
On Tue, 2018-07-31 at 10:48 +0200, Matt Darfeuille wrote:
>
> The attached patch (MUTEX_ON_TAKE1.patch) includes:
> - MUTEX_ON.patch
> - MUTEX_ON1.patch
> - The above correction (changing 'openwrt' to 'lockbin')
> - My take on fixing the above error ( "/sbin/shorewall-lite: line 14:
> -n: not
On 7/30/2018 6:11 PM, Matt Darfeuille wrote:
> On 7/28/2018 5:19 PM, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> On 07/28/2018 08:16 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2018-07-28 at 08:03 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
diff --git a/Shorewall-core/lib.common b/Shorewall-core/lib.common
index 205fc705f..bbebf0936
On 7/28/2018 5:19 PM, Tom Eastep wrote:
> On 07/28/2018 08:16 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>> On Sat, 2018-07-28 at 08:03 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>>> diff --git a/Shorewall-core/lib.common b/Shorewall-core/lib.common
>>> index 205fc705f..bbebf0936 100644
>>> --- a/Shorewall-core/lib.common
>>> +++
On 07/28/2018 08:40 AM, Matt Darfeuille wrote:
> On 7/28/2018 5:19 PM, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> On 07/28/2018 08:16 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2018-07-28 at 08:03 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
diff --git a/Shorewall-core/lib.common b/Shorewall-core/lib.common
index
On 7/28/2018 5:19 PM, Tom Eastep wrote:
> On 07/28/2018 08:16 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>> On Sat, 2018-07-28 at 08:03 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>>> diff --git a/Shorewall-core/lib.common b/Shorewall-core/lib.common
>>> index 205fc705f..bbebf0936 100644
>>> --- a/Shorewall-core/lib.common
>>> +++
On 07/28/2018 08:16 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-07-28 at 08:03 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> diff --git a/Shorewall-core/lib.common b/Shorewall-core/lib.common
>> index 205fc705f..bbebf0936 100644
>> --- a/Shorewall-core/lib.common
>> +++ b/Shorewall-core/lib.common
>> @@ -751,6
On Sat, 2018-07-28 at 08:03 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
> diff --git a/Shorewall-core/lib.common b/Shorewall-core/lib.common
> index 205fc705f..bbebf0936 100644
> --- a/Shorewall-core/lib.common
> +++ b/Shorewall-core/lib.common
> @@ -751,6 +751,8 @@ mutex_on()
>
On Sat, 2018-07-28 at 15:04 +0200, Matt Darfeuille wrote:
>
> Tom, with MUTEX_ON.patch applied, on LEDE '--pid' is not available or
> is
> it done on purpose?:
>
> root@LEDE:~# ps --pid
> ps: unrecognized option: pid
> BusyBox v1.25.1 () multi-call binary.
>
> Usage: ps
>
> Show list of
On 07/28/2018 06:04 AM, Matt Darfeuille wrote:
> On 7/26/2018 8:41 PM, Tom Eastep wrote:
>> On 07/26/2018 09:54 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 08:51 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
Brian,
>>>
>>> Hi Tom,
>>>
Can you point me to online documentation that describes how
On 7/26/2018 8:41 PM, Tom Eastep wrote:
> On 07/26/2018 09:54 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>> On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 08:51 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>>>
>>> Brian,
>>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>>> Can you point me to online documentation that describes how this
>>> 'lock'
>>> utility is supposed to work?
>>
>>
On 07/26/2018 09:54 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 08:51 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>>
>> Brian,
>
> Hi Tom,
>
>> Can you point me to online documentation that describes how this
>> 'lock'
>> utility is supposed to work?
>
> It's a busybox applet added to busybox by OpenWRT.
On 7/26/2018 6:54 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 08:51 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>>
>> Brian,
>
> Hi Tom,
>
>> Can you point me to online documentation that describes how this
>> 'lock'
>> utility is supposed to work?
>
> It's a busybox applet added to busybox by OpenWRT.
On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 08:51 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> Brian,
Hi Tom,
> Can you point me to online documentation that describes how this
> 'lock'
> utility is supposed to work?
It's a busybox applet added to busybox by OpenWRT. Here's the source
for it:
On 07/26/2018 07:01 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 05:48 +0200, Matt Darfeuille wrote:
>>
>> As illustrated by this lingering thread, issues that are only present
>> on
>> one platform makes me moved away from OpenWRT/LEDE.
>
> The platform is not the problem. The platform
On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 05:48 +0200, Matt Darfeuille wrote:
>
> As illustrated by this lingering thread, issues that are only present
> on
> one platform makes me moved away from OpenWRT/LEDE.
The platform is not the problem. The platform is just providing the
tools.
Or are you suggesting that
On 7/26/2018 12:56 AM, Tom Eastep wrote:
> On 07/25/2018 10:14 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>> On Mon, 2018-07-16 at 07:12 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>>>
>>> I think I finally do have the required versions now, yes?
>>
>> Am I correct about having the required versions now?
>>
>>> However,
On 07/25/2018 10:14 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-07-16 at 07:12 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>>
>> I think I finally do have the required versions now, yes?
>
> Am I correct about having the required versions now?
>
>> However, as you can see above, we still have stale/orphan
>>
On Mon, 2018-07-16 at 07:12 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>
> I think I finally do have the required versions now, yes?
Am I correct about having the required versions now?
> However, as you can see above, we still have stale/orphan
> locks/processes hanging around.
If so, any ideas why stale
On Sat, 2018-06-30 at 08:25 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> If 'shorewall show version' returns '5.2.0', then you do not have the
> fix on your administrative system. If it returns '5.2.0.1', then you
> do
> have the fix.
$ shorewall show version
ERROR: Cannot read /etc/shorewall/shorewall.conf!
On 06/28/2018 04:06 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 09:10 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>>
>> No -- it requires the firewall script to be compiled with the fix, as
>> well as having the fix installed on the shorewall[6]-lite firewall.
>
> # rpm -q shorewall
>
On Thu, 2018-04-12 at 09:10 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> No -- it requires the firewall script to be compiled with the fix, as
> well as having the fix installed on the shorewall[6]-lite firewall.
# rpm -q shorewall
shorewall-5.2.0-0.01.fc28.noarch
# opkg info shorewall-lite
Package:
On 04/11/2018 08:15 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 19:09 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>>
>> Did you read the 5.1.12.3 release notes?
>
> Ahhh. No. I read the 5.1.12 release notes but didn't go any further
> when I didn't see it. Should have really.
>
>> 1) Previously, the
On 4/12/2018 5:15 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 19:09 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>>
>> Did you read the 5.1.12.3 release notes?
>
> Ahhh. No. I read the 5.1.12 release notes but didn't go any further
> when I didn't see it. Should have really.
>
>> 1) Previously, the
On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 19:09 -0700, Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> Did you read the 5.1.12.3 release notes?
Ahhh. No. I read the 5.1.12 release notes but didn't go any further
when I didn't see it. Should have really.
> 1) Previously, the Shorewall[6][-lite] lock file was not always
> released
On 04/11/2018 06:30 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 08:51 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>>
>> There are quite a few, but they are only an issue for people who have
>> to
>> rely on the obscure 'lock' utility. The rest just get a 'stale lock
>> file
>> removed' message the next time
On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 08:51 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> There are quite a few, but they are only an issue for people who have
> to
> rely on the obscure 'lock' utility. The rest just get a 'stale lock
> file
> removed' message the next time that they run shorewall[6][-lite].
> I'll
> try to come
On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 08:51 -0800, Tom Eastep wrote:
>
> There are quite a few, but they are only an issue for people who have
> to
> rely on the obscure 'lock' utility.
It's from busybox, FWIW.
> The rest just get a 'stale lock file
> removed' message the next time that they run
On 02/28/2018 04:04 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 07:09 -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>> I frequently get the following situation on my shorewall-lite
>> machine,
>> typically right after boot, where "shorewall-lite restart" has been
>> run
>> many times, overlapping even, I
On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 07:09 -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> I frequently get the following situation on my shorewall-lite
> machine,
> typically right after boot, where "shorewall-lite restart" has been
> run
> many times, overlapping even, I am sure as interfaces are brought up,
> etc.:
>
> #
On 1/17/2018 6:40 PM, Matt Darfeuille wrote:
> On 1/17/2018 5:10 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>> On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 06:52 +0100, Matt Darfeuille wrote:
>
>>
>>> 1) I don't get that behavier on OpenWRT 15.05.1 with shorewall-lite
>>> 5.1.10.2.
>>
>> Are you building your OpenWRT packages
On 1/17/2018 5:10 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 06:52 +0100, Matt Darfeuille wrote:
>>
>> Ok -- You seem to be fixated on not restricting the use of the lock
>> utility.
>
> Please don't be so defensive. That's not it at all. I am trying to
> debug a problem here and in
On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 06:52 +0100, Matt Darfeuille wrote:
>
> Ok -- You seem to be fixated on not restricting the use of the lock
> utility.
Please don't be so defensive. That's not it at all. I am trying to
debug a problem here and in trying to do that I am trying to understand
the nature of
On 1/14/2018 6:47 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-01-14 at 17:06 +0100, Matt Darfeuille wrote:
>>
>> The code is only working and tested on OpenWRT.
>
> Which is my platform.
>
>> Lock on OpenWRT has limited functionalities.
>
> Such as what? And why would it being limited (only) on
On Sun, 2018-01-14 at 17:06 +0100, Matt Darfeuille wrote:
>
> The code is only working and tested on OpenWRT.
Which is my platform.
> Lock on OpenWRT has limited functionalities.
Such as what? And why would it being limited (only) on OpenWRT mean
you that make it's use exclusive to OpenWRT.
On 1/14/2018 4:54 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-01-14 at 16:46 +0100, Matt Darfeuille wrote:
>>
>> If you are not on OpenWRT you may want to apply the attached patch.
>
> So, don't use "lock" on platforms other than OpenWRT? But it's Ok to
> use any of the other locking method on
On Sun, 2018-01-14 at 16:46 +0100, Matt Darfeuille wrote:
>
> If you are not on OpenWRT you may want to apply the attached patch.
So, don't use "lock" on platforms other than OpenWRT? But it's Ok to
use any of the other locking method on non-OpenWRT machines?
Why are you promoting the use of
On 1/12/2018 7:33 PM, Tom Eastep wrote:
> On 01/12/2018 04:09 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>> I frequently get the following situation on my shorewall-lite machine,
>> typically right after boot, where "shorewall-lite restart" has been run
>> many times, overlapping even, I am sure as interfaces
On 01/12/2018 04:09 AM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> I frequently get the following situation on my shorewall-lite machine,
> typically right after boot, where "shorewall-lite restart" has been run
> many times, overlapping even, I am sure as interfaces are brought up,
> etc.:
>
> # ps -ef | grep
I frequently get the following situation on my shorewall-lite machine,
typically right after boot, where "shorewall-lite restart" has been run
many times, overlapping even, I am sure as interfaces are brought up,
etc.:
# ps -ef | grep shorewall
root 1094 1 0 Jan11 ?00:00:01 lock
43 matches
Mail list logo
