* Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Chris Wright wrote:
> >* David S. Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> >>Now the question is what to do about the 2.6.12.x stable
> >>tree. I think we put the offending change there, now we
> >>need to revert it there too. Patrick, could you push
Chris Wright wrote:
* David S. Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Now the question is what to do about the 2.6.12.x stable
tree. I think we put the offending change there, now we
need to revert it there too. Patrick, could you push this
patch to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so we can resolve that too?
* David S. Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:58:27 +0200
>
> > Daniel Drake wrote:
> > > You'll have to forgive my lack of netfilter knowledge, I set up my
> > > firewall
> > > ages ago and haven't really touched it since :)
From: Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:58:27 +0200
> Daniel Drake wrote:
> > You'll have to forgive my lack of netfilter knowledge, I set up my firewall
> > ages ago and haven't really touched it since :)
>
> We decided to revert the responsible change because it
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> We decided to revert the responsible change because it caused problems
> in other areas as well. This patch should fix your problem.
Thanks, it works. If you decide to revisit this in the future, feel free to
send me a patch and I will help test it.
Daniel
-
To
Daniel Drake wrote:
You'll have to forgive my lack of netfilter knowledge, I set up my firewall
ages ago and haven't really touched it since :)
We decided to revert the responsible change because it caused problems
in other areas as well. This patch should fix your problem.
[NETFILTER]:
Chris Wright wrote:
* David S. Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Now the question is what to do about the 2.6.12.x stable
tree. I think we put the offending change there, now we
need to revert it there too. Patrick, could you push this
patch to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so we can resolve that too?
* Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Chris Wright wrote:
* David S. Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Now the question is what to do about the 2.6.12.x stable
tree. I think we put the offending change there, now we
need to revert it there too. Patrick, could you push this
patch
Daniel Drake wrote:
You'll have to forgive my lack of netfilter knowledge, I set up my firewall
ages ago and haven't really touched it since :)
We decided to revert the responsible change because it caused problems
in other areas as well. This patch should fix your problem.
[NETFILTER]:
Patrick McHardy wrote:
We decided to revert the responsible change because it caused problems
in other areas as well. This patch should fix your problem.
Thanks, it works. If you decide to revisit this in the future, feel free to
send me a patch and I will help test it.
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe
From: Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:58:27 +0200
Daniel Drake wrote:
You'll have to forgive my lack of netfilter knowledge, I set up my firewall
ages ago and haven't really touched it since :)
We decided to revert the responsible change because it caused
* David S. Miller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
From: Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 13:58:27 +0200
Daniel Drake wrote:
You'll have to forgive my lack of netfilter knowledge, I set up my
firewall
ages ago and haven't really touched it since :)
We decided
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> You could confirm this theory by logging invalid packets in LOCAL_OUT
> and in PRE_ROUTING - only PRE_ROUTING should trigger. I'm going to
> think about a solution meanwhile.
You'll have to forgive my lack of netfilter knowledge, I set up my firewall
ages ago and haven't
Daniel Drake wrote:
When retrying the telnet test, this appears in the logs:
Jul 8 14:53:04 dsd inv IN=lo OUT=
MAC=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:08:00 SRC=127.0.0.1 DST=127.0.0.1
LEN=40 TOS=0x10 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=15 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=80 DPT=58950 WINDOW=0
RES=0x00 ACK RST URGP=0
Does
Hi,
Some Gentoo users have reported very long application startup times in 2.6.12.
This seems to be because the applications are attempting to connect to local
ports such as sunrpc/portmap (where these services are not running), but some
packets are being dropped, so the application load just
Hi,
Some Gentoo users have reported very long application startup times in 2.6.12.
This seems to be because the applications are attempting to connect to local
ports such as sunrpc/portmap (where these services are not running), but some
packets are being dropped, so the application load just
Daniel Drake wrote:
When retrying the telnet test, this appears in the logs:
Jul 8 14:53:04 dsd inv IN=lo OUT=
MAC=00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:08:00 SRC=127.0.0.1 DST=127.0.0.1
LEN=40 TOS=0x10 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID=15 DF PROTO=TCP SPT=80 DPT=58950 WINDOW=0
RES=0x00 ACK RST URGP=0
Does
Patrick McHardy wrote:
You could confirm this theory by logging invalid packets in LOCAL_OUT
and in PRE_ROUTING - only PRE_ROUTING should trigger. I'm going to
think about a solution meanwhile.
You'll have to forgive my lack of netfilter knowledge, I set up my firewall
ages ago and haven't
18 matches
Mail list logo
