From: Bernd Matthes <mainbug@celocom.de>
To: John Hill <jhill@noach.com>
Cc: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org
Subject: Re: Iptables 2.4.x kernels
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:09:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <42348FF3.1080208@celocom.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200503111736.j2BHaiZ1016306@commserver.noach.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1939 bytes --]
John Hill wrote:
> Should I consider iptables to be dropping 2.4.x kernel support?
>
> I have yet to compile iptables successfully since 2.4.26 and 1.2.11. I get a
> MUTEX error. This was addressed by a patch (sent to me in email) but a
> permanent fix has failed to make the kernel and the iptables code. The new
> 2.4.29 and 1.3.1 still does it. I also had segmentation errors with
> shorewall after applying the patch to 2.4.28 and 1.3.0. I gave up without
> looking into the problem further hoping the new kernel and iptables would
> fix it. It has not.
>
> Thanks
Hi to all!
So I ran into the same problems
with the 2.4.29/1.3.1 combination.
But its not alone the 'MUTEX' error,
what is an error in the kernel sources
(The patch was published only in the netfilter-dev list).
But some other useful extensions such as "mport"
are no more patchable.
"mport" is going to obsolete. Why?
"nf-log" is not patchable,
the dependencies of tproxy
are not patchable:
"nat-reservations": unable to find ladd slot in src
/usr/src/linux/net/ipv4/netfilter/Config.in
"nfnetlink-ctnetlink":
nfnetlink-ctnetlink-0.13 has dependency on ctstat, but ctstat is not
known cannot apply (3 rejects out of 52 hunks)
the "tproxy" itself:
unable to find ladd slot in src /usr/src/linux/net/ipv4/netfilter/Config.in
nat-reservations not applied
newfile: 3 files in our way, unable to apply
cannot apply (2 rejects out of 22 hunks)
apply_dependency: unable to apply dependent nf-log
In conclusion my impression is the same as John's as well:
The 2.4.X kernel serie are no more supported.
To build a new 2.4 kernel requires in the meantime many, many
hours of troubleshooting and code changes by hand. And
I'm not an shrewd kernel developer.
Not all of people using linux kernels want to upgrade
to 2.6 kernels.
With great respect to the netfilter developers but
with funereal greetings
--
# make love
make: *** No rule to make target `love'. Stop.
[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3174 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-03-13 19:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-03-11 17:36 Iptables 2.4.x kernels John Hill
2005-03-11 17:53 ` Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez
2005-03-13 19:09 ` Bernd Matthes [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-03-12 4:48 John Hill
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=42348FF3.1080208@celocom.de \
--to=mainbug@celocom.de \
--cc=jhill@noach.com \
--cc=netfilter@lists.netfilter.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.