another problem disappeared
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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
I didn't have any problems masquerading w/ test11 here. How do you have it setup?
Quoted 14 lines · [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
Signature · 12 lines
=====================================================================
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]
=====================================================================
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/In message <[email protected]> you write:
Quoted 3 lines
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
Quoted 4 lines
(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.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Quoted 4 lines · 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
Signature · 6 lines
It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool,
than to open it and remove all doubt.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/