Re: [CentOS] update failure
On 4/22/19 10:45 AM, Ulf Volmer wrote: On 22.04.19 18:12, Emmett Culley via CentOS wrote: On 4/21/19 10:15 AM, Ulf Volmer wrote: package-cleanup --dupes will list the duplicate packages package-cleanup --cleandupes will remove the dupes. If I remember correctly, you have to add --removenewestdupes to the second command. That didn't seem to work. It did remove duplicates, however, I get the same error when running dnf update. Should I try it without the --removenewestdupes? Is 'package-cleanup --dupes' still listing dupes? Sometimes some of them must be removed manually. Best regards Ulf ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos Turns out I should not have used the --removenewestdupes. When I attempted to remove a dupe, anytime I tried to remove the newest dnf would eant to remove lots of non dupe dependances. But removing only the older packages allowed me to remove each without any dependency issues. Too bad I didn't try running it with out remove newest before removing each manually as you suggested. Then I'd know for sure :-) The upgrade succeeded after manually removing the older dupes. Thanks for your suggestions. Emmett ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] UEFI and PXE
Once upon a time, isdtor said: > 11:06:51.413549 IP (tos 0x10, ttl 128, id 0, offset 0, flags [none], proto > UDP (17), length 390) > 10.1.2.2.67 > 255.255.255.255.68: [udp sum ok] BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length > 362, xid 0x4007adc6, Flags [Broadcast] (0x8000) > Your-IP 10.1.2.57 > Server-IP 10.1.2.1 <-- > Client-Ethernet-Address 00:1b:21:d8:69:1c > file "linux-install/bootx64.efi" > Vendor-rfc1048 Extensions > Magic Cookie 0x63825363 > DHCP-Message Option 53, length 1: ACK > Server-ID Option 54, length 4: 10.1.2.2 > Lease-Time Option 51, length 4: 43200 > Subnet-Mask Option 1, length 4: 255.255.255.0 > Default-Gateway Option 3, length 4: 10.1.2.250 > Domain-Name-Server Option 6, length 8: 10.1.2.2 > Hostname Option 12, length 5: "client" > Domain-Name Option 15, length 20: "foo.bar.com" > NTP Option 42, length 8: 10.1.2.2 > RN Option 58, length 4: 21600 > RB Option 59, length 4: 37800 > TFTP Option 66, length 11: "10.1.2.1" <-- > END Option 255, length 0 I do see a couple of differences - main one is that my boot file is in option 67, not the BOOTP "file" field. Also, my option 66 is a hostname, not an IP. I don't know how you tell ISC DHCP to use option 67 instead of the file field, but maybe that could trigger different client behavior? More odd is that dnsmasq is adding a null terminator to both options 66 and 67. My UEFI PXE clients seem to accept it just fine though. -- Chris Adams ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] UEFI and PXE
James Peltier writes: > Welcome to the world of UEFI. Certain UEFI versions have added additional > support for things like the next-server option to actually be honoured. In > some versions this _is_ in fact _ignored_ and you are expected to place the > image on the server that answers the DHCP response. > > I have been successfully booting both legacy BIOS and UEFI machines for at > least 3 years and know the pains. Thanks. This appears to be the case here. The machine is a Dell 11G server. I upgraded all the firmwares with dsu, BIOS was at latest already. After dsu, I upgraded the NIC option ROM with bootutil (I'm not using the builtin BRCM NICs, but an Intel X520-T2 card). That's all I can do on the hardware front. And it *still* shows the same behaviour. Moving tftp server it is then ... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Accessing Android phones on CentOS 7
On 27/04/19 3:48 AM, Nicolas Kovacs wrote: Hi, My standard Linux desktop is based on a personal blend of CentOS 7 with KDE 4.14 and various add-ons from third-party repositories like EPEL and Nux-Dextop. After a brief stint on OpenSUSE Leap 15.0, this is what I use on my workstation and on my laptop. And this is also what I install on my client's machines, just like I did in our local school's computer room. Thunar (in epel, package name with a capital "T") automatically detects and accesses MTP devices. It's designed for the XFCE desktop but I don't see a reason why it shouldn't work in KDE as well, it will just pull a few of the XFCE libraries when you install it. Peter ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Accessing Android phones on CentOS 7
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 05:48:14PM +0200, Nicolas Kovacs wrote: > Hi, > > > I'm currently busy sanding down a few remaining edges, and one thing > that's left is accessing Android phones. On less conservative distros > based on KDE Plasma 5, this is a no-brainer, since all you have to do is > plug in the phone and then browse its content using Dolphin or some > other file manager. Unfortunately this is not possible with the version > of KDE shipping with CentOS 7. I'm not sure about a GUI file browser, but using simple-mtpfs works fine for me. With sudo, plug the phone in, and then simple-mtpfs /mnt (assuming nothing else is under /mnt), causes a message to appear on the phone, do I wish to allow it, I tap allow, then run the command again, and the phone's files appear under mount. It's not something I do too often, so I don't bother with a directory special directory to mount the phone or worry about getting it done as normal user, but simple-mtpfs works well for my limited needs. -- Scott Robbins PGP keyID EB3467D6 ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Accessing Android phones on CentOS 7
On 26/04/2019 17:48, Nicolas Kovacs wrote: > Hi, > > My standard Linux desktop is based on a personal blend of CentOS 7 with > KDE 4.14 and various add-ons from third-party repositories like EPEL and > Nux-Dextop. After a brief stint on OpenSUSE Leap 15.0, this is what I > use on my workstation and on my laptop. And this is also what I install > on my client's machines, just like I did in our local school's computer > room. > > I'm currently busy sanding down a few remaining edges, and one thing > that's left is accessing Android phones. On less conservative distros > based on KDE Plasma 5, this is a no-brainer, since all you have to do is > plug in the phone and then browse its content using Dolphin or some > other file manager. Unfortunately this is not possible with the version > of KDE shipping with CentOS 7. > > Any ideas for that? > > Cheers from the rainy South of France, > > Niki > Can't say for KDE, but on Gnome (and also because kernel auto-detects it as mtp device) it's mounted and show both internal phone memory and SD card content -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Accessing Android phones on CentOS 7
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 17:48:14 +0200 Nicolas Kovacs wrote: > accessing Android phones. I just use a standard ssh login on my computers and (usually) the Total Commander app on Android, which has a pretty good scp capability built in. If I'm doing a large transfer I'll use scp or rsync through the Termux app. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Accessing Android phones on CentOS 7
Nicolas Kovacs wrote: > > My standard Linux desktop is based on a personal blend of CentOS 7 with > KDE 4.14 and various add-ons from third-party repositories like EPEL and > Nux-Dextop. After a brief stint on OpenSUSE Leap 15.0, this is what I > use on my workstation and on my laptop. And this is also what I install on > my client's machines, just like I did in our local school's computer room. > > I'm currently busy sanding down a few remaining edges, and one thing > that's left is accessing Android phones. On less conservative distros based > on KDE Plasma 5, this is a no-brainer, since all you have to do is plug in > the phone and then browse its content using Dolphin or some other file > manager. Unfortunately this is not possible with the version of KDE > shipping with CentOS 7. > > Any ideas for that? > Interesting. At home, I'm still on C 6 (hate systemd), and it's not a big deal to plug in my Nook ereader, which I believe is Android based. System sees it, I mount it, not an issue. > > Cheers from the rainy South of France, We're expecting a lot of rain here in the DC area today. mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Accessing Android phones on CentOS 7
Hi, My standard Linux desktop is based on a personal blend of CentOS 7 with KDE 4.14 and various add-ons from third-party repositories like EPEL and Nux-Dextop. After a brief stint on OpenSUSE Leap 15.0, this is what I use on my workstation and on my laptop. And this is also what I install on my client's machines, just like I did in our local school's computer room. I'm currently busy sanding down a few remaining edges, and one thing that's left is accessing Android phones. On less conservative distros based on KDE Plasma 5, this is a no-brainer, since all you have to do is plug in the phone and then browse its content using Dolphin or some other file manager. Unfortunately this is not possible with the version of KDE shipping with CentOS 7. Any ideas for that? Cheers from the rainy South of France, Niki -- Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables 7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat Site : https://www.microlinux.fr Mail : i...@microlinux.fr Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32 Mob. : 06 51 80 12 12 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] faI2ban detecting and banning but nothing happens
On Friday 26 April 2019 14:54:43 Pete Biggs wrote:
>
> >
> > I did wonder that myself. I have now amended to Dovecot definition in
> > jail.conf to:
> >
> > [dovecot]
> >
> > port= pop3,pop3s,imap,imaps,submission,sieve,25,1025,465,587
> > logpath = %(dovecot_log)s
> > backend = %(dovecot_backend)s
> >
> > I then unbanned and banned each IP address manually with
>
> Did you reload the configuration? ("fail2ban-client reload")
>
> What action are you using - you mention ipset, are you using iptables-
> ipset-proto4? I don't know anything about ipset, but can you see what
> ports are being blocked in the fail2ban-dovecot set (just to make sure
> it is doing the correct thing).
>
> If you manually add an IP address to the *exim* jail, does it get
> blocked?
I saved all config files and restarted the fail2ban service. I even rebooted
the box. My jail.conf definition for exim is now:
[exim]
port = pop3,pop3s,imap,imaps,submission,sieve,25,1025,465,587
logpath = %(exim_main_log)s
I have also added a REGEX into /etc/fail2ban/filter.d/exim.conf
^%(pid)s.* \[\] rejected EHLO or HELO
to match entries like:
2019-04-26 15:44:13 H=(User) [102.165.49.64] rejected EHLO or HELO user: Your
server with the IP 102.165.49.64 is with helo name (User) configured
incorrectly. Email has been blocked. (HELO Error)
The HELO message seem to have stopped appearing in the logs, so it looks like
that is working. However, the original Dovecot authentication errors are still
appearing in exim/main.log
[root@ollie2 ~]# fail2ban-client status dovecot
Status for the jail: dovecot
|- Filter
| |- Currently failed: 2
| |- Total failed: 180
| `- Journal matches: _SYSTEMD_UNIT=dovecot.service
`- Actions
|- Currently banned: 41
|- Total banned: 41
`- Banned IP list: 106.226.231.159 113.120.142.149 113.120.143.41
114.106.134.228 114.238.30.180 116.91.166.50 117.24.39.199 117.29.90.228
117.31.46.4 117.60.247.84 119.127.17.82 120.43.54.45 121.233.206.62
121.237.56.154 122.7.227.53 14.29.161.224 140.224.60.165 140.224.61.88
141.98.80.32 180.146.128.112 183.135.168.89 185.211.245.198 185.222.209.56
185.222.209.71 185.234.217.160 185.234.217.162 185.234.217.221 185.36.81.165
188.165.238.157 203.2.118.130 209.166.164.71 210.6.94.23 211.72.92.124
27.156.139.95 27.156.176.146 41.164.192.74 45.227.253.100 45.227.253.99
46.232.112.21 49.87.109.233 52.38.234.254
[root@ollie2 ~]# fail2ban-client status exim
Status for the jail: exim
|- Filter
| |- Currently failed: 0
| |- Total failed: 0
| `- Journal matches:
`- Actions
|- Currently banned: 4
|- Total banned: 4
`- Banned IP list: 103.114.104.149 185.222.209.71 185.234.217.160
85.222.209.56
[root@ollie2 ~]# ipset list
Name: fail2ban-sshd
Type: hash:ip
Re: [CentOS] faI2ban detecting and banning but nothing happens
>
> I did wonder that myself. I have now amended to Dovecot definition in
> jail.conf to:
>
> [dovecot]
>
> port= pop3,pop3s,imap,imaps,submission,sieve,25,1025,465,587
> logpath = %(dovecot_log)s
> backend = %(dovecot_backend)s
>
> I then unbanned and banned each IP address manually with
Did you reload the configuration? ("fail2ban-client reload")
What action are you using - you mention ipset, are you using iptables-
ipset-proto4? I don't know anything about ipset, but can you see what
ports are being blocked in the fail2ban-dovecot set (just to make sure
it is doing the correct thing).
If you manually add an IP address to the *exim* jail, does it get
blocked?
P.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] faI2ban detecting and banning but nothing happens
On Saturday 20 April 2019 00:32:43 Pete Biggs wrote: > What ban action do you use? If it's something like iptables-multiport, > then I wonder if the fact that it's detecting the failures as > '[dovecot]' means that it's using the dovecot ports, not the exim > ports, when applying the iptable rule. > > When a host has been banned, can you look at the iptables rules to see > what is actually being applied. Hi Pete, I did wonder that myself. I have now amended to Dovecot definition in jail.conf to: [dovecot] port= pop3,pop3s,imap,imaps,submission,sieve,25,1025,465,587 logpath = %(dovecot_log)s backend = %(dovecot_backend)s I then unbanned and banned each IP address manually with for F in 46.232.112.21 106.226.231.159 [snip] 52.38.234.254 ; do fail2ban-client set dovecot unbanip $F fail2ban-client set dovecot banip $F done which worked. However, having done this, the connections are still getting through to EXIM. [root@ollie2 ~]# fail2ban-client status dovecot Status for the jail: dovecot |- Filter | |- Currently failed: 6 | |- Total failed: 199 | `- Journal matches: _SYSTEMD_UNIT=dovecot.service `- Actions |- Currently banned: 41 |- Total banned: 82 `- Banned IP list: 46.232.112.21 106.226.231.159 113.120.142.149 113.120.143.41 114.106.134.228 114.238.30.180 116.91.166.50 117.24.39.199 117.29.90.228 117.31.46.4 117.60.247.84 119.127.17.82 120.43.54.45 121.233.206.62 121.237.56.154 122.7.227.53 14.29.161.224 140.224.60.165 140.224.61.88 141.98.80.32 180.146.128.112 183.135.168.89 185.211.245.198 185.222.209.56 185.222.209.71 185.234.217.160 185.234.217.162 185.234.217.221 185.36.81.165 188.165.238.157 203.2.118.130 209.166.164.71 210.6.94.23 211.72.92.124 27.156.139.95 27.156.176.146 41.164.192.74 45.227.253.100 45.227.253.99 49.87.109.233 52.38.234.254 [root@ollie2 ~]# ipset list Name: fail2ban-sshd Type: hash:ip Revision: 4 Header: family inet hashsize 1024 maxelem 65536 timeout 360 Size in memory: 120 References: 0 Number of entries: 0 Members: Name: fail2ban-dovecot Type: hash:ip Revision: 4 Header: family inet hashsize 1024 maxelem 65536 timeout 360 Size in memory: 3768 References: 0 Number of entries: 41 Members: 185.211.245.198 timeout 4294522 [snip] 45.227.253.99 timeout 4294532 117.60.247.84 timeout 4294514 Name: fail2ban-exim Type: hash:ip Revision: 4 Header: family inet hashsize 1024 maxelem 65536 timeout 360 Size in memory: 408 References: 0 Number of entries: 3 Members: 185.234.217.160 timeout 4294290 85.222.209.56 timeout 4294291 185.222.209.71 timeout 4294289 [root@ollie2 ~]# ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Systemd, PHP-FPM, and /cgi-bin scripts
Am 26.04.2019 um 09:38 schrieb Markus Falb : > > On 24.04.19 17:40, Benjamin Smith wrote: >> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:44:04 AM PDT Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote: Am 24.04.2019 um 08:37 schrieb Benjamin Smith : > ... So I wrote a /cgi-bin script that works, takes the input, and even runs the > ... >>> >>> Why not implementing this directly as "PHP"-script >>> that runs via php-fpm and not via "standard" CGI? >> >> Because "normal" php processes all of POST data in memory and is thereby >> constrained to the limit of available memory. Typically in the range of a >> few >> MB. This makes it impossible to upload LARGE files, EG 100s of MB or GBs in >> size. > > I think it is possible, but has side effects. > https://php.net/manual/en/ini.core.php#ini.enable-post-data-reading the application should not use POST, it should use PUT ... -- LF ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] faI2ban detecting and banning but nothing happens
> > 2019-04-26 11:43:23,603 fail2ban.filter [7853]: INFO [dovecot] Found > 185.36.81.165 > 2019-04-26 11:43:24,016 fail2ban.actions [7853]: NOTICE [dovecot] > 185.36.81.165 already banned > 2019-04-26 11:44:09,734 fail2ban.filter [7853]: INFO [dovecot] Found > 45.227.253.100 > 2019-04-26 11:44:19,887 fail2ban.filter [7853]: INFO [dovecot] Found > 45.227.253.100 > > and yet the IP is still getting through to exim: Yes, as I said before Fail2Ban is detecting it as a dovecot failure, so it is probably blocking the dovecot ports, not the exim/smtp ports. The "already banned" is a give away. You can verify that by looking at the blocked iptable ports when a host has been banned. You can either sort out why it's detecting it as dovecot and not exim or you can modify the fail2ban dovecot config in jail.local by adding the smtp port to the list of ports. P. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] faI2ban detecting and banning but nothing happens
On Friday 19 April 2019 16:15:32 Kenneth Porter wrote: > On 4/19/2019 5:30 AM, Gary Stainburn wrote: > > I've followed one of the pages on line specifically for installing fail2ban > > on > > Centos 7 and all looks fine. > > Which page? It would help to see what they advised. > On Friday 19 April 2019 16:15:32 Kenneth Porter wrote: > On 4/19/2019 5:30 AM, Gary Stainburn wrote: > > I've followed one of the pages on line specifically for installing > > fail2ban on Centos 7 and all looks fine. > > Which page? It would help to see what they advised. I think I worked from two pages. One I believe was https://www.howtoforge.com/tutorial/how-to-install-fail2ban-on-centos/ I can't remember the other one. I have removed all of the manual amendments so am now basically set up as initially installed. /var/log/fail2ban.log is showing that it's working: 2019-04-26 11:41:08,850 fail2ban.filter [7853]: INFO [dovecot] Found 155.133.4.195 2019-04-26 11:41:09,651 fail2ban.filter [7853]: INFO [dovecot] Found 185.222.209.56 2019-04-26 11:41:11,397 fail2ban.filter [7853]: INFO [dovecot] Found 185.222.209.56 2019-04-26 11:41:11,909 fail2ban.filter [7853]: INFO [dovecot] Found 185.222.209.56 2019-04-26 11:41:12,873 fail2ban.actions [7853]: NOTICE [dovecot] 185.222.209.56 already banned 2019-04-26 11:41:24,306 fail2ban.filter [7853]: INFO [dovecot] Found 185.222.209.56 2019-04-26 11:41:25,010 fail2ban.filter [7853]: INFO [dovecot] Found 46.232.112.21 2019-04-26 11:41:36,035 fail2ban.filter [7853]: INFO [dovecot] Found 46.232.112.21 2019-04-26 11:41:40,564 fail2ban.filter [7853]: INFO [dovecot] Found 45.227.253.100 2019-04-26 11:41:50,779 fail2ban.filter [7853]: INFO [dovecot] Found 45.227.253.100 2019-04-26 11:41:50,915 fail2ban.actions [7853]: NOTICE [dovecot] 45.227.253.100 already banned 2019-04-26 11:43:23,603 fail2ban.filter [7853]: INFO [dovecot] Found 185.36.81.165 2019-04-26 11:43:24,016 fail2ban.actions [7853]: NOTICE [dovecot] 185.36.81.165 already banned 2019-04-26 11:44:09,734 fail2ban.filter [7853]: INFO [dovecot] Found 45.227.253.100 2019-04-26 11:44:19,887 fail2ban.filter [7853]: INFO [dovecot] Found 45.227.253.100 and yet the IP is still getting through to exim: 2019-04-26 11:41:39 dovecot_plain authenticator failed for ([46.232.112.21]) [46.232.112.21]: 535 Incorrect authentication data (set_id=aa26fa5) 2019-04-26 11:41:44 dovecot_plain authenticator failed for ([45.227.253.100]) [45.227.253.100]: 535 Incorrect authentication data (set_id=*) 2019-04-26 11:41:55 dovecot_plain authenticator failed for ([45.227.253.100]) [45.227.253.100]: 535 Incorrect authentication data (set_id=) 2019-04-26 11:43:27 dovecot_login authenticator failed for (88.211.105.31) [185.36.81.165]: 535 Incorrect authentication data (set_id=**) 2019-04-26 11:44:13 dovecot_plain authenticator failed for ([45.227.253.100]) [45.227.253.100]: 535 Incorrect authentication data (set_id=) 2019-04-26 11:44:23 dovecot_plain authenticator failed for ([45.227.253.100]) [45.227.253.100]: 535 Incorrect authentication data (set_id=) 2019-04-26 11:45:19 dovecot_plain authenticator failed for ([185.222.209.56]) [185.222.209.56]: 535 Incorrect authentication data (set_id=) 2019-04-26 11:45:35 dovecot_plain authenticator failed for ([185.222.209.56]) [185.222.209.56]: 535 Incorrect authentication data (set_id=) 2019-04-26 11:46:36 dovecot_plain authenticator failed for ([185.222.209.56]) [185.222.209.56]: 535 Incorrect authentication data (set_id=) 2019-04-26 11:46:37 dovecot_plain authenticator failed for ([45.227.253.100]) [45.227.253.100]: 535 Incorrect authentication data (set_id=) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] UEFI and PXE
> Just set up ISC DHCP on fresh CentOS 7 install and followed the redhat > guide linked in this thread. > Did what I thought was correct and duplicated the OPs problem. > /me scratches head. . . off to `tcpdump -vv -nn -i ens192`. . . packets > never lie. . . > Vendor-Class Option 60, length 32: > "PXEClient:Arch:7:UNDI:003000" > > d'oh; I did _lower case_ a string in dhcpd.conf line on accident while > transcribing: > match if substring (option vendor-class-identifier, 0, 9) = > "pxeclient"; Ok, this is not the case here, case is correct, and tcpdump shows that the correct file is requested. However: 11:06:51.413549 IP (tos 0x10, ttl 128, id 0, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 390) 10.1.2.2.67 > 255.255.255.255.68: [udp sum ok] BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 362, xid 0x4007adc6, Flags [Broadcast] (0x8000) Your-IP 10.1.2.57 Server-IP 10.1.2.1 <-- Client-Ethernet-Address 00:1b:21:d8:69:1c file "linux-install/bootx64.efi" Vendor-rfc1048 Extensions Magic Cookie 0x63825363 DHCP-Message Option 53, length 1: ACK Server-ID Option 54, length 4: 10.1.2.2 Lease-Time Option 51, length 4: 43200 Subnet-Mask Option 1, length 4: 255.255.255.0 Default-Gateway Option 3, length 4: 10.1.2.250 Domain-Name-Server Option 6, length 8: 10.1.2.2 Hostname Option 12, length 5: "client" Domain-Name Option 15, length 20: "foo.bar.com" NTP Option 42, length 8: 10.1.2.2 RN Option 58, length 4: 21600 RB Option 59, length 4: 37800 TFTP Option 66, length 11: "10.1.2.1" <-- END Option 255, length 0 11:06:51.413552 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 64565, offset 0, flags [none], proto UDP (17), length 84) 10.1.2.57.1943 > 10.1.2.2.69: [udp sum ok] 56 RRQ "linux-install/bootx64.efi" octet tsize 0 blksize 32768<-- Where: dhcp server = 10.1.2.2, tftp server 10.1.2.1, client 10.1.2.57. DHCP answer is all good and the client still requests the wrong server I will check if there are any NIC fw updates. If not, the workaround is to move the tftp server to the dhcp server. And I thought computers were supposed to do my bidding and not the other way round ... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Systemd, PHP-FPM, and /cgi-bin scripts
On 24.04.19 17:40, Benjamin Smith wrote: > On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:44:04 AM PDT Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote: >>> Am 24.04.2019 um 08:37 schrieb Benjamin Smith : ... >>> So I wrote a /cgi-bin script that works, takes the input, and even runs >>> the ... >> >> Why not implementing this directly as "PHP"-script >> that runs via php-fpm and not via "standard" CGI? > > Because "normal" php processes all of POST data in memory and is thereby > constrained to the limit of available memory. Typically in the range of a few > MB. This makes it impossible to upload LARGE files, EG 100s of MB or GBs in > size. I think it is possible, but has side effects. https://php.net/manual/en/ini.core.php#ini.enable-post-data-reading -- Kind Regards, Markus Falb ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
