Recently I muttered a bit about the fact that
with 2.4.0test11 masquerading, the first packet
that was to be forwarded crashes the kernel. Always.
Tonight I wanted to start investigating this more closely,
but to my pleasant surprise 2.4.0test12pre3 does not have
this problem. Progress.
(I am still a bit curious: did other people see this?
Did someone fix a known problem with net(filter) or say /proc?
It would be a pity if this disappeared by coincidence
and appears again next month.)
Andries
I didn't have any problems masquerading w/ test11 here. How do you have
it setup?
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Recently I muttered a bit about the fact that
> with 2.4.0test11 masquerading, the first packet
> that was to be forwarded crashes the kernel. Always.
> Tonight I wanted to start investigating this more closely,
> but to my pleasant surprise 2.4.0test12pre3 does not have
> this problem. Progress.
>
> (I am still a bit curious: did other people see this?
> Did someone fix a known problem with net(filter) or say /proc?
> It would be a pity if this disappeared by coincidence
> and appears again next month.)
>
> Andries
--
=====================================================================
Mohammad A. Haque http://www.haque.net/
[email protected]
"Alcohol and calculus don't mix. Project Lead
Don't drink and derive." --Unknown http://wm.themes.org/
[email protected]
=====================================================================
In message <[email protected]> you write:
> Recently I muttered a bit about the fact that
> with 2.4.0test11 masquerading, the first packet
> that was to be forwarded crashes the kernel. Always.
Yes, I was on the plane when I read your report, but I can't reproduce
this. I use masquerading every day (my laptop lives in its own
masqueraded subnet), currently test10:
Linux penicillin 2.4.0-test10 #1 SMP Fri Nov 10 12:31:21 EST 2000 i686 unknown
> (I am still a bit curious: did other people see this?
> Did someone fix a known problem with net(filter) or say /proc?
> It would be a pity if this disappeared by coincidence
> and appears again next month.)
I've no other reports, and people are using this in production.
That's why it was so puzzling...
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
Hacking time.
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:28:13 +0100 (MET), [email protected] wrote:
> (I am still a bit curious: did other people see this?
> Did someone fix a known problem with net(filter) or say /proc?
> It would be a pity if this disappeared by coincidence
> and appears again next month.)
No problems here, and I've been using various 2.4.0testX for 5
months to do masquerading, without any problems. My firewall
is running 2.4.0test11 right now, and this mail is going through
it. :-)
Ion
--
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool,
than to open it and remove all doubt.