[LARTC] iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues

[LARTC] iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues

[ArcosCom Linux User]

Hi, I'm having problems with this configuration:
   iptables 1.3.7 (vanilla or repackaged for fc5)
   kernel 2.6.19 (vanilla)
   ROUTE 1.11 (last pom-ng)
   layer7-filter 2.6 (last in sf.net)
   connlimit (last pom-ng)

When I try to use -j ROUTE in any chain in mangle table I have this error:

[root@myhost ~]# iptables -v -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport msnp
-j ROUTE --gw $chat_gw
ROUTE  tcp opt -- in * out *  0.0.0.0/0  -> 0.0.0.0/0  tcp dpt:1863 ROUTE
gw:80.32.61.1
iptables: Invalid argument

[root@myhost ~]# dmesg | grep "ROUTE"
ipt_ROUTE: targinfosize 0 != 40

[root@myhost ~]# cat /var/log/messages | grep "ROUTE"
Dec 11 20:32:50 myhost kernel: ipt_ROUTE: targinfosize 0 != 40

With layer7 filter, I have a problem too, but it has no dmesg or syslog
entry:

[root@myhost ~]# iptables -v -t mangle -A PREROUTING -m layer7 --l7proto
msnmessenger
  0 opt -- in * out *  0.0.0.0/0  -> 0.0.0.0/0  LAYER7 l7proto msnmessenger
iptables: Invalid argument

Does anyone help me please? I need any more recent patch?

More info:
   SMP machine (dual Xeon)

Thanks

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

[LARTC] Re: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues

[ArcosCom Linux User]

Any help about this?

Thanks

El Lun, 11 de Diciembre de 2006, 20:44, ArcosCom Linux User escribió:
> Hi, I'm having problems with this configuration:
>    iptables 1.3.7 (vanilla or repackaged for fc5)
>    kernel 2.6.19 (vanilla)
>    ROUTE 1.11 (last pom-ng)
>    layer7-filter 2.6 (last in sf.net)
>    connlimit (last pom-ng)
>
> When I try to use -j ROUTE in any chain in mangle table I have this error:
>
> [root@myhost ~]# iptables -v -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport msnp
> -j ROUTE --gw $chat_gw
> ROUTE  tcp opt -- in * out *  0.0.0.0/0  -> 0.0.0.0/0  tcp dpt:1863 ROUTE
> gw:80.32.61.1
> iptables: Invalid argument
>
> [root@myhost ~]# dmesg | grep "ROUTE"
> ipt_ROUTE: targinfosize 0 != 40
>
> [root@myhost ~]# cat /var/log/messages | grep "ROUTE"
> Dec 11 20:32:50 myhost kernel: ipt_ROUTE: targinfosize 0 != 40
>
> With layer7 filter, I have a problem too, but it has no dmesg or syslog
> entry:
>
> [root@myhost ~]# iptables -v -t mangle -A PREROUTING -m layer7 --l7proto
> msnmessenger
>   0 opt -- in * out *  0.0.0.0/0  -> 0.0.0.0/0  LAYER7 l7proto
> msnmessenger
> iptables: Invalid argument
>
> Does anyone help me please? I need any more recent patch?
>
> More info:
>    SMP machine (dual Xeon)
>
> Thanks
>
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list
> LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
>


_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

[LARTC] Re: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues

[Patrick McHardy]

ArcosCom Linux User wrote:
> El Lun, 11 de Diciembre de 2006, 20:44, ArcosCom Linux User escribió:
> 
>>Hi, I'm having problems with this configuration:
>>   iptables 1.3.7 (vanilla or repackaged for fc5)
>>   kernel 2.6.19 (vanilla)
>>   ROUTE 1.11 (last pom-ng)
>>   layer7-filter 2.6 (last in sf.net)
>>   connlimit (last pom-ng)
>>
>>When I try to use -j ROUTE in any chain in mangle table I have this error:
>>
>>[root@myhost ~]# iptables -v -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport msnp
>>-j ROUTE --gw $chat_gw
>>ROUTE  tcp opt -- in * out *  0.0.0.0/0  -> 0.0.0.0/0  tcp dpt:1863 ROUTE
>>gw:80.32.61.1
>>iptables: Invalid argument
>>
>>[root@myhost ~]# dmesg | grep "ROUTE"
>>ipt_ROUTE: targinfosize 0 != 40


The ROUTE target needs to set the targetsize field in struct ipt_target.
It probably needs other adjustments for 2.6.19 as well. I would just use
normal policy routing ..

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

[LARTC] Re: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues

[ArcosCom Linux User]

Thanks for your response.

I'm using multiple gateways for internet connection and having problems
with random disconection, and I not use ROUTE usually, but I was trying to
force only one gateway for one type of traffic (which the clients lost
conections and are having issues).

I know I can use -j MARK or -j CONNMARK and this mark to filter, but I'm
using marks for another purposes and I can't use it for routing.

The box is a dual xeon and the kernel has been compiled SMP enabled.

I haven't tested ROUTE yet with this kernel (2.6.19), but with 2.6.18.x I
were having a problem with -j ROUTE in -t mangle and POSTROUTING chain.

Perhaps ROUTE need a more in deepth revision?

Do I help more reporting the bug into netfilter-bugzilla?

Thanks a lot.

El Mar, 12 de Diciembre de 2006, 9:34, Patrick McHardy escribió:
> ArcosCom Linux User wrote:
>> El Lun, 11 de Diciembre de 2006, 20:44, ArcosCom Linux User escribió:
>>
>>>Hi, I'm having problems with this configuration:
>>>   iptables 1.3.7 (vanilla or repackaged for fc5)
>>>   kernel 2.6.19 (vanilla)
>>>   ROUTE 1.11 (last pom-ng)
>>>   layer7-filter 2.6 (last in sf.net)
>>>   connlimit (last pom-ng)
>>>
>>>When I try to use -j ROUTE in any chain in mangle table I have this
>>> error:
>>>
>>>[root@myhost ~]# iptables -v -t mangle -A POSTROUTING -p tcp --dport
>>> msnp
>>>-j ROUTE --gw $chat_gw
>>>ROUTE  tcp opt -- in * out *  0.0.0.0/0  -> 0.0.0.0/0  tcp dpt:1863
>>> ROUTE
>>>gw:80.32.61.1
>>>iptables: Invalid argument
>>>
>>>[root@myhost ~]# dmesg | grep "ROUTE"
>>>ipt_ROUTE: targinfosize 0 != 40
>
>
> The ROUTE target needs to set the targetsize field in struct ipt_target.
> It probably needs other adjustments for 2.6.19 as well. I would just use
> normal policy routing ..
>
>
>


_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

[LARTC] Re: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues

[Patrick McHardy]

ArcosCom Linux User wrote:
> Thanks for your response.
> 
> I'm using multiple gateways for internet connection and having problems
> with random disconection, and I not use ROUTE usually, but I was trying to
> force only one gateway for one type of traffic (which the clients lost
> conections and are having issues).
> 
> I know I can use -j MARK or -j CONNMARK and this mark to filter, but I'm
> using marks for another purposes and I can't use it for routing.

Everything using marks supports bitmasks in 2.6.19.

> The box is a dual xeon and the kernel has been compiled SMP enabled.
> 
> I haven't tested ROUTE yet with this kernel (2.6.19), but with 2.6.18.x I
> were having a problem with -j ROUTE in -t mangle and POSTROUTING chain.
> 
> Perhaps ROUTE need a more in deepth revision?

As I said, it needs to fill in the targetsize field and probably needs
to adjust the target function signature.

> Do I help more reporting the bug into netfilter-bugzilla?

Its still down, but the ROUTE patch is unmaintained anyway.
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

[LARTC] Re: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues

[ArcosCom Linux User]

Then, the actual and updated and maintained substitute for ROUTE is using
CONNMARK and/or MARK and then add filters/rules to routes table with ip.
Am I in the truth?

Sorry for my out-of-date knoledge of these things and for the "obvious"
questions.

Thanks a lot.

El Mie, 13 de Diciembre de 2006, 9:38, Patrick McHardy escribió:
> ArcosCom Linux User wrote:
>> Thanks for your response.
>>
>> I'm using multiple gateways for internet connection and having problems
>> with random disconection, and I not use ROUTE usually, but I was trying
>> to
>> force only one gateway for one type of traffic (which the clients lost
>> conections and are having issues).
>>
>> I know I can use -j MARK or -j CONNMARK and this mark to filter, but I'm
>> using marks for another purposes and I can't use it for routing.
>
> Everything using marks supports bitmasks in 2.6.19.
>
>> The box is a dual xeon and the kernel has been compiled SMP enabled.
>>
>> I haven't tested ROUTE yet with this kernel (2.6.19), but with 2.6.18.x
>> I
>> were having a problem with -j ROUTE in -t mangle and POSTROUTING chain.
>>
>> Perhaps ROUTE need a more in deepth revision?
>
> As I said, it needs to fill in the targetsize field and probably needs
> to adjust the target function signature.
>
>> Do I help more reporting the bug into netfilter-bugzilla?
>
> Its still down, but the ROUTE patch is unmaintained anyway.
>


_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

[LARTC] Re: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues

[Patrick McHardy]

ArcosCom Linux User wrote:
> Then, the actual and updated and maintained substitute for ROUTE is using
> CONNMARK and/or MARK and then add filters/rules to routes table with ip.
> Am I in the truth?


That has always been the better way. The route target is a hack, I'm
don't know why it exists at all.

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

[LARTC] Re: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues

[Patrick McHardy]

Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>> Its still down, but the ROUTE patch is unmaintained anyway.
> 
> 
> How about attached (and inlined) patch. BTW - is it possible to add a
> Kconfig entry after a specific text, like with Makefile.ladd?
> 
> 
> [POM-NG] ROUTE: 2.6.19 compatibility fix
> 
> Make both IPv4 and IPv6 versions compatible with 2.6.19


Thanks Krzysztof, applied.

I would prefer to have someone maintain it externally though. Jan, are
you still interested in doing that? If you need help or webspace for
an external repository please let me know.



_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

[LARTC] Re: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues

[Patrick McHardy]

Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Jan 10 2007 06:58, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> 
>>I would prefer to have someone maintain it externally though. Jan, are
>>you still interested in doing that? If you need help or webspace for
>>an external repository please let me know.
> 
> 
> I would give it a try. Though I would really prefer to have it in the
> kernel and iptables rather than pomng or pomng-external. In my
> opinion that simplifies maintainability. Changes in the netfilter API
> seem to be the most common reason for patching (someone changed the
> xt_match->match and xt_target->target signatures in 2.6.20 again!),
> and keeping out-of-tree modules compiling with kernel-du-jour can be
> an #ifdef pita. Then it's really preferable to have 2.6.18 have a
> xt_FOOBAR with netfilter-2.6.18 signatures, and 2.6.20 with
> netfilter-2.6.20. Especially since many people run distributions with
> RPM/DEBified iptables, so the POM `runme` will not be easy to
> accomplish for the casual user. (I currently do have that issue -
> after doing `svn up` on pomng, I have to manually move the changes to
> (my) kernel rpm and (my) iptables rpm, because the days of `make
> install` are GONE for me - at least I try.)
> 
> I understand that POM does not require to compile with all
> kernels-of-the-last-three-months, but this also simplifies
> integration for end users. They do not need to backport/forward port
> indated/outdated out-of-tree modules and, at best, do not even need
> to recompile the kernel.
> 
> Of course there are some modules that continue being out-of-tree
> because they would not fit in (imagine a 500K geoip.c with a
> compiled-in big string array). Not sure what to do about them.
> Perhaps do it like chaostables [2.6.18-2.6.20], trying to keep it
> working for a limited set of kernels.
> 
> Oh well, that said, my ideal plan would be to get ROUTE TARPIT
> connlimit and u32 into mainline in one go, and perhaps, after review
> and discussion, chaostables and some of the others that live in
> Krzystof's patchlet collection.

ROUTE will not go in, its a bad hack and shouldn't be used (which
is why I would prefer to get rid of it). Haven't looked at TARPIT
and connlimit in a long time, we can think about it.

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

[LARTC] Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7,

[ArcosCom Linux User]

I think so, there are many old matches that are stables and I have to
apply many times when I update the kernel. If they where into kernel and
iptables (because they are now not as experimental than many months/years
ago) these problem when new kernel releases and/or iptables releases
disapears very quickly.

I have a great headache now, I had to patch my kernel, patch iptables,
update iproute to allow "mark-and" operations for routing. Yes, I can
adapt many thinks and forgot many routing/filtering functionality, but
then, my linux box will be useless for the purposes I deploy it.

I have no problem in patch and upgrade thinks, my problem is that I have
no time to do all these steps every any important bug, improvement is
released.

To allow compatibility with my installed distro (one in production and
another in testing), I had to readapt the RPM's and modify specs to put
there the patch. Usually is easy, but when netfilter changes its internals
structs (that I have no knoledgement) I can't correct the patches and
adapt them.

When I readapt RPM's, I can use them into my systems, and I think many
users should want them for their systems and the same purpose as me and I
don't know where I can send them to allow people to use them (perhaps I
make a simple webpage for that and a RPM repository, but I can't use my
lines to allow comunity to massive download the rpm's).

Too punctual work that comunity can't improve or maintain because they
hasn't got access. Perhaps, when I finish the testing and all the problems
I have got in testing environtment were solved, I can make a good
repository to allow community to download and upload thinks, but now, I
had time to make it.

The real problems of all these, I think, are :
   1) That the time from a fix/release goes out to that change appears
into the distro repositories are enought.
   2) Another problem is when there are bugs are fixed in versios and that
fix is not backported to prior versions and distros mainteneers have to
backport the fix to preserve stable state of the distro package (less
features than actual stable sources, but stable system).
   3) Another problem is that the patches for bugfixes are not public or
easy accesible for normal users as me, and then I not only need to
learn how to patch, make and upgrade (or rpm/deb build), I need to
learn too how to extract the bugfix patch I need to solve one problem
in my kernel/iptables/module/etc... version, what are the developer
list, subscribe, where are the development sources that correct the
problem, how I can download the patch, etc...

I know that all these project are diferent communities, but if all
comunities make more easy to the end user some tasks, the users learns
more quickly how to contribute and work with the many projects and
tecknologies.

Don't know how projects could make the thinks easy, but, in case of
netfilter, some tables explaining what matches are included in kernel (and
from what version) allow users to know what kernel version can use for
certain purposes.

For example, I know h323 where added into kernel at 2.6.17 kernel version,
but the community appears to be working into 2.6.16.x version to stabilize
it and and backported many bugfixes from 2.6.19.x to 2.6.16.x. I think
2.6.16.x kernel is the more stable at these days, but if I want h323
conntrack modules I can't use pom-ńg because h323 is not in pom-ng
today, and if I use old pom-ng, I know I will use a module with some bugs
corrected in 2.6.18.x kernel. Do I explained a problem that have many
users than me?

Another example, some body say in the lists that using "mark" will allow
me to change routes by "mark value" or by "and-mark mask", fine, that were
to substitute ROUTE tarjet. I think that is a correct solution but ...
What are the implications? 1) I can't see any documentation in netfilter
or iproute.
2) My distro don't update the packages, I have to do it manually.
3) When I have an updated iproute package, kernel package, iptables
package and I finish and test the configuration, I have the knowledte to
write a little explanation/how-to to allow users to know how and don't
waste their time looking for the steps ... some hours after I found a
wiki, I need to register, etc.... When I finished all the needed steps to
allow me to write a "more or less" public super-mini-howto I forgot the
steps and I, finally, don't write the info, because my systems are working
for my purposes, I have my paper with my hand annotations and I need to
continue working in more tasks.

Sorry for the big e-mail, but it is only my user opinion about these type
o things.

Sorry for my poor english.

Regards

El Mie, 10 de Enero de 2007, 12:53, Jan Engelhardt escribió:
>
> On Jan 10 2007 06:58, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>>>> Its still down, but the ROUTE patch is unmaintained anyway.
>>>
>>> How about attached (and inlined) patch. BTW - is it possible to add a
>>> Kconfig entry after a specific text, like with Makefile.ladd?
>>>
>>> [POM-NG] ROUTE: 2.6.19 compatibility fix
>>>
>>> Make both IPv4 and IPv6 versions compatible with 2.6.19
>>
>>
>>Thanks Krzysztof, applied.
>>
>>I would prefer to have someone maintain it externally though. Jan, are
>>you still interested in doing that? If you need help or webspace for
>>an external repository please let me know.
>
> I would give it a try. Though I would really prefer to have it in the
> kernel and iptables rather than pomng or pomng-external. In my
> opinion that simplifies maintainability. Changes in the netfilter API
> seem to be the most common reason for patching (someone changed the
> xt_match->match and xt_target->target signatures in 2.6.20 again!),
> and keeping out-of-tree modules compiling with kernel-du-jour can be
> an #ifdef pita. Then it's really preferable to have 2.6.18 have a
> xt_FOOBAR with netfilter-2.6.18 signatures, and 2.6.20 with
> netfilter-2.6.20. Especially since many people run distributions with
> RPM/DEBified iptables, so the POM `runme` will not be easy to
> accomplish for the casual user. (I currently do have that issue -
> after doing `svn up` on pomng, I have to manually move the changes to
> (my) kernel rpm and (my) iptables rpm, because the days of `make
> install` are GONE for me - at least I try.)
>
> I understand that POM does not require to compile with all
> kernels-of-the-last-three-months, but this also simplifies
> integration for end users. They do not need to backport/forward port
> indated/outdated out-of-tree modules and, at best, do not even need
> to recompile the kernel.
>
> Of course there are some modules that continue being out-of-tree
> because they would not fit in (imagine a 500K geoip.c with a
> compiled-in big string array). Not sure what to do about them.
> Perhaps do it like chaostables [2.6.18-2.6.20], trying to keep it
> working for a limited set of kernels.
>
> Oh well, that said, my ideal plan would be to get ROUTE TARPIT
> connlimit and u32 into mainline in one go, and perhaps, after review
> and discussion, chaostables and some of the others that live in
> Krzystof's patchlet collection.
>
> Opinions, please?
>
>
> 	-`J'
> --
>
>


_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

[LARTC] Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7,

[ArcosCom Linux User]

I think so, there are many old matches that are stables and I have to
apply many times when I update the kernel. If they where into kernel and
iptables (because they are now not as experimental than many months/years
ago) these problem when new kernel releases and/or iptables releases
disapears very quickly.

I have a great headache now, I had to patch my kernel, patch iptables,
update iproute to allow "mark-and" operations for routing. Yes, I can
adapt many thinks and forgot many routing/filtering functionality, but
then, my linux box will be useless for the purposes I deploy it.

I have no problem in patch and upgrade thinks, my problem is that I have
no time to do all these steps every any important bug, improvement is
released.

To allow compatibility with my installed distro (one in production and
another in testing), I had to readapt the RPM's and modify specs to put
there the patch. Usually is easy, but when netfilter changes its internals
structs (that I have no knoledgement) I can't correct the patches and
adapt them.

When I readapt RPM's, I can use them into my systems, and I think many
users should want them for their systems and the same purpose as me and I
don't know where I can send them to allow people to use them (perhaps I
make a simple webpage for that and a RPM repository, but I can't use my
lines to allow comunity to massive download the rpm's).

Too punctual work that comunity can't improve or maintain because they
hasn't got access. Perhaps, when I finish the testing and all the problems
I have got in testing environtment were solved, I can make a good
repository to allow community to download and upload thinks, but now, I
had time to make it.

The real problems of all these, I think, are :
   1) That the time from a fix/release goes out to that change appears
into the distro repositories are enought.
   2) Another problem is when there are bugs are fixed in versios and that
fix is not backported to prior versions and distros mainteneers have to
backport the fix to preserve stable state of the distro package (less
features than actual stable sources, but stable system).
   3) Another problem is that the patches for bugfixes are not public or
easy accesible for normal users as me, and then I not only need to learn
how to patch, make and upgrade (or rpm/deb build), I need to learn too how
to extract the bugfix patch I need to solve one problem in my
kernel/iptables/module/etc... version, what are the developer list,
subscribe, where are the development sources that correct the problem, how
I can download the patch, etc...

I know that all these project are diferent communities, but if all
comunities make more easy to the end user some tasks, the users learns
more quickly how to contribute and work with the many projects and
tecknologies.

Don't know how projects could make the thinks easy, but, in case of
netfilter, some tables explaining what matches are included in kernel (and
from what version) allow users to know what kernel version can use for
certain purposes.

For example, I know h323 where added into kernel at 2.6.17 kernel version,
but the community appears to be working into 2.6.16.x version to stabilize
it and and backported many bugfixes from 2.6.19.x to 2.6.16.x. I think
2.6.16.x kernel is the more stable at these days, but if I want h323
conntrack modules I can't use pom-ńg because h323 is not in pom-ng
today, and if I use old pom-ng, I know I will use a module with some bugs
corrected in 2.6.18.x kernel. Do I explained a problem that have many
users than me?

Another example, some body say in the lists that using "mark" will allow
me to change routes by "mark value" or by "and-mark mask", fine, that were
to substitute ROUTE tarjet. I think that is a correct solution but ...
What are the implications? 1) I can't see any documentation in netfilter
or iproute.
2) My distro don't update the packages, I have to do it manually.
3) When I have an updated iproute package, kernel package, iptables
package and I finish and test the configuration, I have the knowledte to
write a little explanation/how-to to allow users to know how and don't
waste their time looking for the steps ... some hours after I found a
wiki, I need to register, etc.... When I finished all the needed steps to
allow me to write a "more or less" public super-mini-howto I forgot the
steps and I, finally, don't write the info, because my systems are working
for my purposes, I have my paper with my hand annotations and I need to
continue working in more tasks.

Sorry for the big e-mail, but it is only my user opinion about these type
o things.

Sorry for my poor english.

Regards

El Mie, 10 de Enero de 2007, 12:53, Jan Engelhardt escribió:
> On Jan 10 2007 06:58, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>>Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
>>>> Its still down, but the ROUTE patch is unmaintained anyway.
>>> How about attached (and inlined) patch. BTW - is it possible to add a
Kconfig entry after a specific text, like with Makefile.ladd?
>>> [POM-NG] ROUTE: 2.6.19 compatibility fix
>>> Make both IPv4 and IPv6 versions compatible with 2.6.19
>>Thanks Krzysztof, applied.
>>I would prefer to have someone maintain it externally though. Jan, are
you still interested in doing that? If you need help or webspace for an
external repository please let me know.
> I would give it a try. Though I would really prefer to have it in the
kernel and iptables rather than pomng or pomng-external. In my
> opinion that simplifies maintainability. Changes in the netfilter API
seem to be the most common reason for patching (someone changed the
xt_match->match and xt_target->target signatures in 2.6.20 again!), and
keeping out-of-tree modules compiling with kernel-du-jour can be an
#ifdef pita. Then it's really preferable to have 2.6.18 have a xt_FOOBAR
with netfilter-2.6.18 signatures, and 2.6.20 with
> netfilter-2.6.20. Especially since many people run distributions with
RPM/DEBified iptables, so the POM `runme` will not be easy to
> accomplish for the casual user. (I currently do have that issue - after
doing `svn up` on pomng, I have to manually move the changes to (my)
kernel rpm and (my) iptables rpm, because the days of `make install` are
GONE for me - at least I try.)
> I understand that POM does not require to compile with all
> kernels-of-the-last-three-months, but this also simplifies
> integration for end users. They do not need to backport/forward port
indated/outdated out-of-tree modules and, at best, do not even need to
recompile the kernel.
> Of course there are some modules that continue being out-of-tree because
they would not fit in (imagine a 500K geoip.c with a
> compiled-in big string array). Not sure what to do about them.
> Perhaps do it like chaostables [2.6.18-2.6.20], trying to keep it
working for a limited set of kernels.
> Oh well, that said, my ideal plan would be to get ROUTE TARPIT
> connlimit and u32 into mainline in one go, and perhaps, after review and
discussion, chaostables and some of the others that live in
> Krzystof's patchlet collection.
> Opinions, please?
> 	-`J'
> --





_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7,

[Andrew Beverley]

Sorry, a bit late replying to this but just wanted to add my thoughts.

> I think so, there are many old matches that are stables and I have to
> apply many times when I update the kernel. If they where into kernel and
> iptables (because they are now not as experimental than many months/years
> ago) these problem when new kernel releases and/or iptables releases
> disapears very quickly.
> 
> I have a great headache now, I had to patch my kernel, patch iptables,
> update iproute to allow "mark-and" operations for routing. Yes, I can
> adapt many thinks and forgot many routing/filtering functionality, but
> then, my linux box will be useless for the purposes I deploy it.
> 
> I have no problem in patch and upgrade thinks, my problem is that I have
> no time to do all these steps every any important bug, improvement is
> released.

I would also like to see as many of the POM included in the stable
kernel. It's a bit of a headache to patch in what I want each time I
update the kernel, and on a fresh system I have to install CURL just to
update POM just to add connlimit to the kernel...

It's also a bit of a problem because I am looking to hand my server over
to professional support. I've got to explain to them that if they ever
update the kernel that it will need patching. If they don't, or forget,
then it will significantly affect the system's performance in the
particular situation.

Finally, I can't help but think it puts off newcomers. Although fairly
simple when you know what you're doing, when someone comes from a
point-and-click windows background it is incredibly complicated!

The two I would like to see in the main kernel are connlimit (stable for
a few years?) and ipset.

Regards,

Andy Beverley


_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7,

[Andrew Beverley]

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 03:58 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> Andrew Beverley wrote:
> > I would also like to see as many of the POM included in the stable
> > kernel. It's a bit of a headache to patch in what I want each time I
> > update the kernel, and on a fresh system I have to install CURL just to
> > update POM just to add connlimit to the kernel...
> 
> IMHO, patching kernels to add some certain shiny-feature(TM) is
> generally a bad idea if you don't know how the patch internally works or
> if you can't directly get support from the author of such patch.

Yes, agreed. I was more thinking of those that (look like) they have
been stable for a few years.

> Anyway, if you think that some certain patch is stable enough to push it
> forward to mainline, encourage the author to push it forward. Probably
> there is a reason why he decided not to do that.

Okay, I've emailed the author (of connlimit) but not received a reply. I
did ask him a while ago on the same subject but didn't really get a
reason as to why it is not. Anybody have any ideas?

In this case can *I* push it forward to the stable kernel?

Regards,

Andy Beverley


_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7, kernel

[Patrick McHardy]

Krzysztof Oledzki wrote:
> Getting back to the question: generally I have no objection for
> forwarding connlinit to the mainline but I believe we should first
> investigate a possibilty to add support for other protocols than TCP.
> AFAIK at least UDP support could be very usefull - p2p software
> generates not only a lot of tcp cnnections but also udp flows and main
> job for this extension is to prevent conntrack database overflows.

Feel free to post a version you consider suitable for merging
(without all the version ifdefs, only nf_conntrack support,
etc). I had a quick look at the current version and it seems
to maintain some internal hash of connections, IIRC that has
not always been the case. In case that change is from you
please add a short description. And it should probably support
all protocols.
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc

Re: [LARTC] Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7,

[Andrew Beverley]

> >>> I would also like to see as many of the POM included in the stable
> >>> kernel. It's a bit of a headache to patch in what I want each time I
> >>> update the kernel, and on a fresh system I have to install CURL just to
> >>> update POM just to add connlimit to the kernel...
> >>
> >> IMHO, patching kernels to add some certain shiny-feature(TM) is
> >> generally a bad idea if you don't know how the patch internally works or
> >> if you can't directly get support from the author of such patch.
> >
> > Yes, agreed. I was more thinking of those that (look like) they have
> > been stable for a few years.
> >
> >> Anyway, if you think that some certain patch is stable enough to push it
> >> forward to mainline, encourage the author to push it forward. Probably
> >> there is a reason why he decided not to do that.
> >
> > Okay, I've emailed the author (of connlimit) but not received a reply. I
> > did ask him a while ago on the same subject but didn't really get a
> > reason as to why it is not. Anybody have any ideas?
> >
> > In this case can *I* push it forward to the stable kernel?
> 
> Please excuse me - I have been _extremely _ busy for the last three weeks.

No please accept my apologies - I was a bit impatient.

> Getting back to the question: generally I have no objection for forwarding 
> connlinit to the mainline but I believe we should first investigate a 
> possibilty to add support for other protocols than TCP. AFAIK at least UDP 
> support could be very usefull - p2p software generates not only a lot of 
> tcp cnnections but also udp flows and main job for this extension is to 
> prevent conntrack database overflows.

Very interesting. I had exactly the same thoughts myself, and have
actually already created a patch for hashlimit which matches on the
number of UDP 'connections'.

Of course, the problem with UDP is that there are no connections as such
to count, which is why I chose to patch hashlimit rather than connlimit.
Hashlimit (as I am sure you are aware) keeps a table of recent data
flows which die after a set time, making it easier to count UDP flows.
I'm not sure how easy this would be to achieve with connlimit.

I was planning on sending the patch to hashlimit's author, if nothing
else just to get feedback on it, as it is the first kernel hacking I
have done. Maybe I should post it to the netfilter-devel list instead,
or am I using the wrong tool for the wrong job?

Regards,

Andy Beverley


_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc