i've been tracking the list the last months and i'm not pretty sure if i
am right on the above sentences
* there was an strange bug on 2.2.x kernels that causes fs corruption
somewhere from 2.2.8 to 2.2.10 that should be fixed on 2.2.10ac10.
the problem here is that i can hardly found where is the code that
should fix that bug.. since i can't find that code.. i'm not sure
if this patch is also included on 2.2.11pre2 which i'd like to package.
since i've been unable to make this bug appear on any of my test systems
SMP or not.. i'm a little worried if it could suddenly appear on any
other system that this kernel package is installed before.
* there has been two "strange" patches on bugtraq talking on problems on
the linux TCP/IP stack that weren't "officially" patched here... are
they real problems?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
diff -ur ../vger-990630/linux/net/ipv4/route.c linux/net/ipv4/route.c
--- ../vger-990630/linux/net/ipv4/route.c Wed Jun 30 22:22:32 1999
+++ linux/net/ipv4/route.c Tue Jul 13 17:00:52 1999
@@ -957,7 +957,7 @@
if (rt->key.iif == 0)
src = rt->rt_src;
- else if (fib_lookup(&rt->key, &res) == 0)
+ else if (fib_lookup(&rt->key, &res) == 0 && res.type != RTN_NAT)
src = FIB_RES_PREFSRC(res);
else
src = inet_select_addr(rt->u.dst.dev, rt->rt_gateway,
RT_SCOPE_UNIVERSE);
------------------------------------------------------------------------
this was posted for Richard Bouska <risa@GSL.KRALUPY.CZ>, and is supposed
to fix a "Kernel Panic" when doing (quoted from the post):
"ping -R a NAT ed ip from a real ip ( it has to go through the fw ) or
ping -R a real ip from a NATed one fw has to be below hop 9 on this road
otherwise it doesnt work."
this patch isn't on any -ac patch for 2.2.10, nor on 2.2.11pre2, is it
real?
the other patch is about a ipchains problem and was posted by: John
McDonald <jm@dataprotect.com> and Thomas Lopatic <tl@dataprotect.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** linux.old/net/ipv4/ip_fw.c Wed Jun 9 05:33:07 1999
--- linux/net/ipv4/ip_fw.c Fri Jul 23 19:20:45 1999
***************
*** 644,650 ****
default:
size_req = 0;
}
! offset = (ntohs(ip->tot_len) < (ip->ihl<<2)+size_req);
}
src = ip->saddr;
--- 647,666 ----
default:
size_req = 0;
}
!
! /* If it is a truncated first fragment then it can be
! * used to rewrite port information, and thus should
! * be blocked.
! */
!
! if (ntohs(ip->tot_len) < (ip->ihl<<2)+size_req)
! {
! if (!testing && net_ratelimit()) {
! printk("Suspect short first fragment.\n");
! dump_packet(ip,rif,NULL,NULL,0,0,0,0);
! }
! return FW_BLOCK;
! }
}
src = ip->saddr;
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
neither on -ac patches... is this a real problem? or just FUD?
* i've found a warning about share interrupt support on the "Kernel
Newsflash" that says
"The 2.2.x serial driver has a bug that interferes with interrupt sharing
for multifunction cards. The effect is that opening a serial port on a
multifunction card fails, giving an IO error."
does it mean that i need to do a patch for making a multiport serial
card, like the Cyclades to work?, sorry but i am a newbie on such kind
of cards. if it is true, why isn't the kernel patched on default?,
wouldn't it be nicer? or just any other serial function won't work..,
if we need a "switching" option, why don't use a /proc entry?
thanks in advance for any feedback regarding this
Carlo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/