Re: [LARTC] OUTPUT chain marking after or before routing?
Hello Martin, Thanks very much for your explanation. So, locally generated packets marked in the OUTPUT chain have already been routed. This is really quite sad isn't it? I was attempting the following for locally generated packets: iptables --append OUTPUT --table mangle --match owner \ --uid-owner 500 --jump MARK --set-mark 0x5 ip rule fwmark 0x5 table 5; etc ... By matching the process uid or gid, I was counting on being able to policy route based on who was asking -- quite a neat solution actually. ip rule doesn't allow to match a uid/gid, and from your explanation, it would be hard to imagine. I don't suppose you have a way around this?? Cheers Charles ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] [HTB] htb_dequeue_tree assertion (kernel 2.4.21-ac4)
If you read comment above htb_dequeue_tree, it should be called
only when it is sure that there are packets inside of the level/prio.
It is known by other HTB mechanism (per-level activity lists).
Thus the bugtrap is to catch case where class was inserted
into activity list because it had packets in its sub-qdisc
but when we actually decide to dequeue - it has no packet.
It is weird - can qdisc lose packets even when dequeue was
not called ??
---
Martin Devera aka devik
Linux kernel QoS/HTB maintainer
http://luxik.cdi.cz/~devik/
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Wilfried Weissmann wrote:
Hello,
I think the BUG_TRAP() in the htb_dequeue_tree() is wrong. First it
checks if the class pointer cl is NULL, which is obviously right. But
I do not understand why we also check whenever the queue length of the
leaf queue is zero cl-un.leaf.q-q.qlen. I would have put that in the
expression of the if statements that comes afterwards. A queue length
of 0 is not an error condition that should be reported (please, correct
me if I misunderstood the code).
I can pretty much reliably trigger the assertion with a well utilized
gigabit ethernet link when I flush and reactivate the TC configuration
every 3 seconds. It looks like the error occurs only when confiuration
changes are made.
I will some some more tests on monday when I am back at the office to
verify that the queue length is (not) the problem.
bye,
wilfried
static struct sk_buff *
htb_dequeue_tree(struct htb_sched *q,int prio,int level)
{
struct sk_buff *skb = NULL;
//struct htb_sched *q = (struct htb_sched *)sch-data;
struct htb_class *cl,*start;
/* look initial class up in the row */
start = cl = htb_lookup_leaf (q-row[level]+prio,prio,q-ptr[level]+prio);
do {
BUG_TRAP(cl cl-un.leaf.q-q.qlen); if (!cl) return NULL;
HTB_DBG(4,1,htb_deq_tr prio=%d lev=%d cl=%X defic=%d\n,
prio,level,cl-classid,cl-un.leaf.deficit[level]);
if (likely((skb = cl-un.leaf.q-dequeue(cl-un.leaf.q)) != NULL))
break;
if (!cl-warned) {
___
LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
___
LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] [HTB] htb_dequeue_tree assertion (kernel 2.4.21-ac4)
devik wrote:
If you read comment above htb_dequeue_tree, it should be called
only when it is sure that there are packets inside of the level/prio.
It is known by other HTB mechanism (per-level activity lists).
Thus the bugtrap is to catch case where class was inserted
into activity list because it had packets in its sub-qdisc
but when we actually decide to dequeue - it has no packet.
It is weird - can qdisc lose packets even when dequeue was
not called ??
If you change the depth of the leave queue then it is possible to drop
packets or if you completely exchange the queue. Which would also
explain why the assertion only occurs when the configuration is altered.
Greetings,
Wilfried
---
Martin Devera aka devik
Linux kernel QoS/HTB maintainer
http://luxik.cdi.cz/~devik/
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Wilfried Weissmann wrote:
Hello,
I think the BUG_TRAP() in the htb_dequeue_tree() is wrong. First it
checks if the class pointer cl is NULL, which is obviously right. But
I do not understand why we also check whenever the queue length of the
leaf queue is zero cl-un.leaf.q-q.qlen. I would have put that in the
expression of the if statements that comes afterwards. A queue length
of 0 is not an error condition that should be reported (please, correct
me if I misunderstood the code).
I can pretty much reliably trigger the assertion with a well utilized
gigabit ethernet link when I flush and reactivate the TC configuration
every 3 seconds. It looks like the error occurs only when confiuration
changes are made.
I will some some more tests on monday when I am back at the office to
verify that the queue length is (not) the problem.
bye,
wilfried
static struct sk_buff *
htb_dequeue_tree(struct htb_sched *q,int prio,int level)
{
struct sk_buff *skb = NULL;
//struct htb_sched *q = (struct htb_sched *)sch-data;
struct htb_class *cl,*start;
/* look initial class up in the row */
start = cl = htb_lookup_leaf (q-row[level]+prio,prio,q-ptr[level]+prio);
do {
BUG_TRAP(cl cl-un.leaf.q-q.qlen); if (!cl) return NULL;
HTB_DBG(4,1,htb_deq_tr prio=%d lev=%d cl=%X defic=%d\n,
prio,level,cl-classid,cl-un.leaf.deficit[level]);
if (likely((skb = cl-un.leaf.q-dequeue(cl-un.leaf.q)) != NULL))
break;
if (!cl-warned) {
___
LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
[LARTC] Mass Mailing Programs Email Spiders
lo all, Am having this problem that mass mailing programs and email spiders are not being limited to the bandwidth i restrict for the computer that uses it. whenever this programs are run, the choke up all downlink and uplink bandwidth. can someone offer some suggestion or solution? thanks K _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] Dual T1's and firewalls/Nat, Help?
On Friday 18 July 2003 20:44, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: On Fri, 2003-07-18 at 13:13, Jerry Amundson wrote: Hi. I'm new to these tools, but well versed in Linux and networking, and I just haven't found out some general stuff by going through the HOWTO's! You have the links to Julians patches and the nano-how to right? If not I would check out the FAQ @ http://www.docum.org/. This is the link you need : http://www.docum.org/stef.coene/qos/faq/cache/57.html Stef -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Using Linux as bandwidth manager http://www.docum.org/ #lartc @ irc.oftc.net ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
Re: [LARTC] Mass Mailing Programs Email Spiders
Uhmm, if actually you have the full information on what am doing, maybe you would understand it better. Am not spamming, am trying to eliminate it, by webfilter methods, ave done blocking of sites were this programs are located, blocked downloads of the programs, presently working on a project to allow squid and spamassassin to interface and filter webmail traffic before it leaves the server. so for short, am not asking for help to do sth wrong. but hey, its been a highly sensitive topic, thanks for ur input K even a joke cant sound funny sometimes and that wasnt proper, ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) think u were acting in a haste. would a mass mailer try to expose him/herself??? Surely you must be joking? What makes you think we would want to help you send spam or harvest email addresses? On Sat, 2003-07-19 at 05:55, Chijioke Kalu wrote: lo all, Am having this problem that mass mailing programs and email spiders are not being limited to the bandwidth i restrict for the computer that uses it. whenever this programs are run, the choke up all downlink and uplink bandwidth. can someone offer some suggestion or solution? thanks K _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/ _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ LARTC mailing list / [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
