On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 16:50, Andy Furniss wrote:
> jamal wrote:
> > To test the theory copy iptables.h and iptables_common.h from
> > iptables-1.3.1/include into iproute2/include with the latest iproute2
> > and recompile. Make sure m_ipt.c is recompiled - you may have to do a
> > make clean in iproute2/tc/
> I haven't done a new kernel with stats patched yet.
Thanks for atching that btw - it was tricky; i have a strong feeling it
was resolved by patch i sent.
> Using iptables 1.3.1
> and iproute2-ss050314 with iptables headers I now get below instead of
> memory error.
> ++ /usr/sbin/tc filter add dev eth0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 10 u32
> match u32 0 0 flowid 1:1 action ipt -j MARK --set-mark 1 action mirred
> egress redirect dev dummy0
> tablename: mangle hook: NF_IP_PRE_ROUTING
> target: MARK set 0x1 index 0
> bad action type mirred
> Usage: ... gact <ACTION> [RAND] [INDEX]
> Where: ACTION := reclassify | drop | continue | pass RAND := random
> <RANDTYPE> <ACTION> <VAL>RANDTYPE := netrand | determVAL : = value not
> exceeding 10000INDEX := index value used
> bad action parsing
> parse_action: bad value (5:mirred)!
> Illegal "action"
But what happens when you try without mirred? Lets debug that first.
The fact that mirred fails is very strange - shouldnt;
[You could try something like "action ok" instead of "action mirred .."
and see if cascading of actions works ..]. Remus didnt seem to have this
> I will try with new kernel later tonight.
> > I should be able to validate all this stuff starting tommorow evening.
> > Also I have a feeling if you make this change, things will not work for
> > iptables <=1.2.9/10/11. Can you verify that?
> Yes it segfaults with iptables v1.2.11
So the changes that happened on iptables are neither forward nor
I am begining to question the wisdom of putting the header files
in iproute2. We may have to make a call and say we are going to work
only on iptables >= 1.3.0 - would this make sense?