On Sunday 2008-12-07 14:05, Florian Weimer wrote:
It just confused me a bit because I was specifically reporting a bug in
a Debian-modified iptables/kernel combiniation.
Right. In your specific case, the only thing you can do is
upgrade to a newer iptables from either upstream or Debian.
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Jan Engelhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debian happened to patch in ipt_connlimit into their
iptables 1.3.6 and kernel 2.6.18. And they (logically) did
not do so for 2.6.24, because xt_connlimit is included since
then.
Debian's iptables included various pom
* Jan Engelhardt:
On Sunday 2008-12-07 06:32, Florian Weimer wrote:
This does not look right at all. The kernel returns a binary blob
structured exactly like ipt_connlimit_info -- you can't just go and
change the way userspace interprets that blob.
What problem are you trying to fix
* Jan Engelhardt:
On Sunday 2008-12-07 13:20, Florian Weimer wrote:
The kernel blob never changed, because xt_connlimit was first
introduced into the kernel in version 2.6.23. *ipt*_connlimit (from
patch-o-matic) never found its way into the mainline kernel.
So this is not an upstream bug.
On Sunday 2008-12-07 13:49, Florian Weimer wrote:
It just confused me a bit because I was specifically reporting a bug in
a Debian-modified iptables/kernel combiniation.
Right. In your specific case, the only thing you can do is
upgrade to a newer iptables from either upstream or Debian.
* Jan Engelhardt:
On Sunday 2008-12-07 13:49, Florian Weimer wrote:
It just confused me a bit because I was specifically reporting a bug in
a Debian-modified iptables/kernel combiniation.
Right. In your specific case, the only thing you can do is
upgrade to a newer iptables from either
On Sunday 2008-12-07 13:20, Florian Weimer wrote:
The kernel blob never changed, because xt_connlimit was first
introduced into the kernel in version 2.6.23. *ipt*_connlimit (from
patch-o-matic) never found its way into the mainline kernel.
So this is not an upstream bug.
I'm not sure what
7 matches
Mail list logo
