ipt_recent needs a maintainer!

ipt_recent needs a maintainer!

[Harald Welte]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1715 bytes --]

Hi!

ipt_recent was merged into the mainline kernel quite some time ago, but
unfortunately the original author doesn't seem to be compelled to
maintain it.  There's nothing wrong with that, after all we do this
voluntarily!  But we have to deal with the consequences.

Some people from the netfilter community have indicated that it's coding
style rectifies a re-write, but that's something I don't want to address
now.

What we need as a short-term solution is somebody maintaining this
beast, somebody looking into bug reports, etc.

There are a number of bug reports coming in, and nobody really takes
care of them.  The latest one seems to be
https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=415
but there are more, like
https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=369
and I also think there have been reports to bugme.osdl.org as well.

Unless somebody volunteers to maintain that module within a short time,
I suggest that we mark it as "EXPERIMENTAL" and/or "BROKEN" in Kconfig
of 2.6.16.

Comments welcome.

[p.s: you might argue that it's the coreteam's job to do this. This is
true, but I for myself haven't even used the module once and I doubt
it's usefulness.  I'm not familiar with the code, and the past months
have shown that I'm not likely to find the time to deal with it.]

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org>                 http://netfilter.org/
============================================================================
  "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
   architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
   on while IP was being designed."                    -- Paul Vixie

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: ipt_recent needs a maintainer!

[Bryan Cardillo]

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 10:42:54AM +0530, Harald Welte wrote:
> ipt_recent was merged into the mainline kernel quite some time ago, but
> unfortunately the original author doesn't seem to be compelled to
> maintain it.  There's nothing wrong with that, after all we do this
> voluntarily!  But we have to deal with the consequences.
> 
> Some people from the netfilter community have indicated that it's coding
> style rectifies a re-write, but that's something I don't want to address
> now.
> 
> What we need as a short-term solution is somebody maintaining this
> beast, somebody looking into bug reports, etc.
> 
> There are a number of bug reports coming in, and nobody really takes
> care of them.  The latest one seems to be
> https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=415
> but there are more, like
> https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=369
> and I also think there have been reports to bugme.osdl.org as well.
> 
> Unless somebody volunteers to maintain that module within a short time,
> I suggest that we mark it as "EXPERIMENTAL" and/or "BROKEN" in Kconfig
> of 2.6.16.

        if nobody more qualified steps up, I'd be happy to maintain
        it.  it is similar (sort of) to the expire module which I
        hacked up (and is also of questionable usefulness).  it will
        probably be a week or so before I can look at the code and
        reported bugs.  so if others beat me to patches, rewrites,
        etc, great, but I just wanted to register my interest.

        --Bryan

Re: ipt_recent needs a maintainer!

[Patrick McHardy]

Harald Welte wrote:
> Some people from the netfilter community have indicated that it's coding
> style rectifies a re-write, but that's something I don't want to address
> now.
> 
> What we need as a short-term solution is somebody maintaining this
> beast, somebody looking into bug reports, etc.

I think even the short term solution might be a rewrite :)

My guess is that rewriting this thing cleanly without the bugs
wouldn't take more time than fixing the bugs in the mess it is.

Re: ipt_recent needs a maintainer!

[Juergen.Kreileder]

Hi,

> ipt_recent was merged into the mainline kernel quite some time ago, but
> unfortunately the original author doesn't seem to be compelled to
> maintain it.  There's nothing wrong with that, after all we do this
> voluntarily!  But we have to deal with the consequences.
>
> Some people from the netfilter community have indicated that it's coding
> style rectifies a re-write, but that's something I don't want to address
> now.
>
> What we need as a short-term solution is somebody maintaining this
> beast, somebody looking into bug reports, etc.

I'm using ipt_recent, so I'm interested in keeping it in shape.
I'm familiar with the code and its current issues (see http://blog.blackdown.de/2005/05/09/fixing-the-ipt_recent-netfilter-module/)

So I'd like to volunteer for maintaining it.

> There are a number of bug reports coming in, and nobody really takes
> care of them.  The latest one seems to be
> https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=415

This is exactly the bug described on my site.

> but there are more, like
> https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=369

That bug is fixed since 2.6.12. The code in earlier kernels wasn't 64-bit safe.


    Juergen

-- 
Juergen Kreileder, Blackdown Java-Linux Team
http://blog.blackdown.de/

Re: ipt_recent needs a maintainer!

[Juergen Kreileder]

Hi,

> ipt_recent was merged into the mainline kernel quite some time ago, but
> unfortunately the original author doesn't seem to be compelled to
> maintain it.  There's nothing wrong with that, after all we do this
> voluntarily!  But we have to deal with the consequences.
> 
> Some people from the netfilter community have indicated that it's coding
> style rectifies a re-write, but that's something I don't want to address
> now.
> 
> What we need as a short-term solution is somebody maintaining this
> beast, somebody looking into bug reports, etc.

I'm using ipt_recent, so I'm interested in keeping it in shape.
I'm familiar with the code and its current issues (see
http://blog.blackdown.de/2005/05/09/fixing-the-ipt_recent-netfilter-module/)

So I'd like to volunteer for maintaining it.

> There are a number of bug reports coming in, and nobody really takes
> care of them.  The latest one seems to be
> https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=415

This is exactly the bug described on my site.

> but there are more, like
> https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=369

That bug is fixed since 2.6.12. The code in earlier kernels wasn't
64-bit safe.


	Juergen

-- 
Juergen Kreileder, Blackdown Java-Linux Team
http://blog.blackdown.de/

Re: ipt_recent needs a maintainer!

[Patrick McHardy]

Juergen Kreileder wrote:
>> What we need as a short-term solution is somebody maintaining this
>> beast, somebody looking into bug reports, etc.
> 
> I'm using ipt_recent, so I'm interested in keeping it in shape.
> I'm familiar with the code and its current issues (see
> http://blog.blackdown.de/2005/05/09/fixing-the-ipt_recent-netfilter-module/) 
> 
> So I'd like to volunteer for maintaining it.

Sounds good to me. I'd say bring on the patches :)

Re: ipt_recent needs a maintainer!

[Harald Welte]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 736 bytes --]

On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 07:21:27PM +0100, Juergen Kreileder wrote:
> I'm using ipt_recent, so I'm interested in keeping it in shape.
> I'm familiar with the code and its current issues (see
> http://blog.blackdown.de/2005/05/09/fixing-the-ipt_recent-netfilter-module/)
> 
> So I'd like to volunteer for maintaining it.

Great. I've reassigned bug #415 ;)

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org>                 http://netfilter.org/
============================================================================
  "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
   architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
   on while IP was being designed."                    -- Paul Vixie

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]