Iptables 2.4.x kernels

Iptables 2.4.x kernels

[John Hill]

El vie, 11-03-2005 a las 12:36 -0500, John Hill escribió:
> 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.

Are you applying the patch-o-matic patches to the kernels and userspace
tools? You must do it to compile the code.

> Thanks
> 
> --john

Regards.


Yes I patched it with the latest ng.

--john

Iptables 2.4.x kernels

[John Hill]

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

--john

Re: Iptables 2.4.x kernels

[Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez]

El vie, 11-03-2005 a las 12:36 -0500, John Hill escribió:
> 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.

Are you applying the patch-o-matic patches to the kernels and userspace
tools? You must do it to compile the code.

> Thanks
> 
> --john

Regards.

-- 

Jose Maria Lopez Hernandez
Director Tecnico de bgSEC
jkerouac@bgsec.com
bgSEC Seguridad y Consultoria de Sistemas Informaticos
http://www.bgsec.com
ESPAÑA

The only people for me are the mad ones -- the ones who are mad to live,
mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time,
the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn
like fabulous yellow Roman candles.
                -- Jack Kerouac, "On the Road"

Re: Iptables 2.4.x kernels

[Bernd Matthes]

[-- 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 --]