From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "L. A. Walsh" Subject: WARNING: iputils is not very fresh, upgrade is recommended; bug in iputils or kernel? Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:46:26 -0700 Message-ID: <560C8262.6030405@tlinx.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Linux Kernel Network Developers Return-path: Received: from ishtar.tlinx.org ([173.164.175.65]:34380 "EHLO Ishtar.hs.tlinx.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750902AbbJABQh (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 21:16:37 -0400 Received: from [192.168.4.12] (Athenae [192.168.4.12]) by Ishtar.hs.tlinx.org (8.14.9/8.14.4/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id t910kRxm060177 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 17:46:29 -0700 Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: According to the comment in the code: --- /* Sigh, IP_RECVERR for raw socket * was broken until 2.4.9. So, we ignore * the first error and warn on the second. */ if (once++ == 1) fprintf(stderr, "\rWARNING: kernel is not very fresh, upgrade is recommended.\n"); ---- When I first saw the error I wondered how fresh my kernel had to be to pass iputils' tests, since I'm running on: Ishtar:packages/build/iputils-s20121221> uname -a Linux Ishtar 4.1.0-Isht-Van #2 SMP PREEMPT Tue Jun 23 07:52:09 PDT 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux So I looked at code Um... why is iputils thinking that 4.1.0 < 2.4.9 -- or that 4.1.0 is older than 2.4.9? I humbly submit that 4.1.0, released in 2015 is unquestionably 'fresher' than the date on iputils of 2012. Does this mean the check in iputils is faulty w/r/t new kernels, or do new kernels have a *SERIOUS* regression?