From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:27:49 +0000 Subject: Re: [LARTC] MARK: targinfosize 8 != 4 Message-Id: <439F6705.1000700@trash.net> List-Id: References: <00fe01c5ffb5$f0a7cf20$455f030a@askeyrd3> <20051213091820.GA1021@DervishD> <439EB826.3070002@trash.net> <200512131809.jBDI9lAW028466@usagi.ingate.se> In-Reply-To: <200512131809.jBDI9lAW028466@usagi.ingate.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Jones Desougi Cc: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Jones Desougi wrote: >>That can't be the reason, all revisions of a single match/target are >>in the same object file and the supported revision is (supposed to be) >>probed. Salim, can you send a strace of the failing iptables command? > > > The key being "supposed to be". :-) I somehow expected something like this :) > Try the patch below. (It's bug #413 in bugzilla) This looks good, thanks. I'm going to apply it as soon as there is confirmation that it really fixes the problem people are seeing. _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: MARK: targinfosize 8 != 4 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:27:49 +0100 Message-ID: <439F6705.1000700@trash.net> References: <00fe01c5ffb5$f0a7cf20$455f030a@askeyrd3> <20051213091820.GA1021@DervishD> <439EB826.3070002@trash.net> <200512131809.jBDI9lAW028466@usagi.ingate.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl, netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org Return-path: To: Jones Desougi In-Reply-To: <200512131809.jBDI9lAW028466@usagi.ingate.se> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: lartc-bounces@mailman.ds9a.nl Errors-To: lartc-bounces@mailman.ds9a.nl List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org Jones Desougi wrote: >>That can't be the reason, all revisions of a single match/target are >>in the same object file and the supported revision is (supposed to be) >>probed. Salim, can you send a strace of the failing iptables command? > > > The key being "supposed to be". :-) I somehow expected something like this :) > Try the patch below. (It's bug #413 in bugzilla) This looks good, thanks. I'm going to apply it as soon as there is confirmation that it really fixes the problem people are seeing.