On Friday 11 March 2005 17:55, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Herbert Xu wrote:
> > Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>You're right, good catch. IPT_RETURN is interpreted internally by
> >>ip_tables, but since the value changed it isn't recognized by ip_tables
> >>anymore and returned
On Friday 11 March 2005 17:55, Patrick McHardy wrote:
Herbert Xu wrote:
Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're right, good catch. IPT_RETURN is interpreted internally by
ip_tables, but since the value changed it isn't recognized by ip_tables
anymore and returned to nf_iterate()
Herbert Xu wrote:
Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You're right, good catch. IPT_RETURN is interpreted internally by
ip_tables, but since the value changed it isn't recognized by ip_tables
anymore and returned to nf_iterate() as NF_REPEAT. This patch restores
the old value.
Please fix
Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You're right, good catch. IPT_RETURN is interpreted internally by
> ip_tables, but since the value changed it isn't recognized by ip_tables
> anymore and returned to nf_iterate() as NF_REPEAT. This patch restores
> the old value.
Please fix
David S. Miller wrote:
Damn, wait, Patrick, I think I know what's happening. The iptables
IPT_* verdicts are dependant upon the NF_* values, and they don't
cope with Bart's changes I bet. Can you figure out what the exact
error would be? This kind of issue would explain the looping inside
of
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:51:36 -0800 David S. Miller wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:56 +0100
> Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Works fine here. You could try if reverting one of these two patches
> > helps (second one only if its a SMP box).
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED],
On Friday 11 March 2005 13:51, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:56 +0100
> Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Works fine here. You could try if reverting one of these two patches
> > helps (second one only if its a SMP box).
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2005-03-09
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:56 +0100
Patrick McHardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Works fine here. You could try if reverting one of these two patches
> helps (second one only if its a SMP box).
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2005-03-09 20:28:17-08:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[NETFILTER]: Reduce call chain
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
My box gets stuck while booting (actually starting ntpd) whith tonight
pull from Linus. It looks like it is spinning in ipt_do_table when I do
SysRq-P. No call trace though.
Please post your ruleset and .config. A backtrace would also be
useful.
Anyone else seeing it? Any
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
My box gets stuck while booting (actually starting ntpd) whith tonight
pull from Linus. It looks like it is spinning in ipt_do_table when I do
SysRq-P. No call trace though.
Please post your ruleset and .config. A backtrace would also be
useful.
Anyone else seeing it? Any
On Friday 11 March 2005 13:51, David S. Miller wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:56 +0100
Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Works fine here. You could try if reverting one of these two patches
helps (second one only if its a SMP box).
[EMAIL PROTECTED], 2005-03-09
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:51:36 -0800 David S. Miller wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:00:56 +0100
Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Works fine here. You could try if reverting one of these two patches
helps (second one only if its a SMP box).
[EMAIL PROTECTED], 2005-03-09
David S. Miller wrote:
Damn, wait, Patrick, I think I know what's happening. The iptables
IPT_* verdicts are dependant upon the NF_* values, and they don't
cope with Bart's changes I bet. Can you figure out what the exact
error would be? This kind of issue would explain the looping inside
of
Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're right, good catch. IPT_RETURN is interpreted internally by
ip_tables, but since the value changed it isn't recognized by ip_tables
anymore and returned to nf_iterate() as NF_REPEAT. This patch restores
the old value.
Please fix netfilter_arp
Herbert Xu wrote:
Patrick McHardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're right, good catch. IPT_RETURN is interpreted internally by
ip_tables, but since the value changed it isn't recognized by ip_tables
anymore and returned to nf_iterate() as NF_REPEAT. This patch restores
the old value.
Please fix
Hi,
My box gets stuck while booting (actually starting ntpd) whith tonight
pull from Linus. It looks like it is spinning in ipt_do_table when I do
SysRq-P. No call trace though.
Anyone else seeing it? Any ideas?
--
Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Hi,
My box gets stuck while booting (actually starting ntpd) whith tonight
pull from Linus. It looks like it is spinning in ipt_do_table when I do
SysRq-P. No call trace though.
Anyone else seeing it? Any ideas?
--
Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel
17 matches
Mail list logo