On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> Reported-by: Paul Bolle
> ---
> 0) This is a rerun of https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/
> kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/LC2TIYKPWNJNE2L34C26HAUMOUK4BBPK/
> on current master.
>
> 1)
Em 14-04-2016 15:14, Reindl Harald escreveu:
Am 14.04.2016 um 20:06 schrieb Marcelo Ricardo Leitner:
Em 14-04-2016 08:27, Reindl Harald escreveu:
why are that packages dropped in context of nf_nat_ftp?
that are the part of FTP connections and that IP exists, has a valid PTR
and is a known
Reported-by: Paul Bolle
---
0) This is a rerun of https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/
kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/LC2TIYKPWNJNE2L34C26HAUMOUK4BBPK/
on current master.
1) Like the previous run this is hardly tested. As a consequence this is
not
Em 14-04-2016 08:27, Reindl Harald escreveu:
why are that packages dropped in context of nf_nat_ftp?
that are the part of FTP connections and that IP exists, has a valid PTR
and is a known client and so what is wrong with cotaining "227"?
[845643.840984] nf_ct_ftp: dropping packet: partial
On (Thu) 14 Apr 2016 [12:48:59], Paul Bolle wrote:
> Ever since v2.6.36 there's a conflict between OLPC support and Lguest
> guest support: a kernel image can't both support booting OLPC x86
> hardware and booting as an Lguest guest. Booting a kernel image that
> tries to do both as an Lguest
Hi Josh,
On do, 2016-04-14 at 07:09 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> lguest is a toy, and one that doesn't work very well it seems.
> Probably OK to disable it for now in any case. Let me think it over.
What I wasn't sure about is whether we should bother setting
CONFIG_LGUEST (ie, the host side
Ever since v2.6.36 there's a conflict between OLPC support and Lguest
guest support: a kernel image can't both support booting OLPC x86
hardware and booting as an Lguest guest. Booting a kernel image that
tries to do both as an Lguest guest will fail with
lguest: Reinjecting trap 13 for fault