Mailing List Archive: Bug in ip_vs_conn.c missing parameter line 969:

Bug in ip_vs_conn.c missing parameter line 969:

matthew at crocker

Mar 13, 2001, 8:14 AM

Post #1 of 9 (1001 views)

Hello everyone,

I'm trying to build ipvs-0.2.5 on linux 2.4.2-ac20 and it fails with a
problem in ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c on line 969: saying it needs another
parameter. I added , NULL to the end and it compiled but I get a kernal
oops when I try to run ipvsadm -A -t ...

Anyone know a fix?

-Matt

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew S. Crocker
Vice President / Internet Division Email: matthew@crocker.com
Crocker Communications Phone: (413) 587-3350
PO BOX 710 Fax: (413) 587-3352
Greenfield, MA 01302-0710 http://www.crocker.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Bug in ip_vs_conn.c missing parameter line 969: [ In reply to ]

Mar 13, 2001, 9:22 AM

Post #2 of 9 (994 views)

Hello,

On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Matthew S. Crocker wrote:

>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm trying to build ipvs-0.2.5 on linux 2.4.2-ac20 and it fails with a
> problem in ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c on line 969: saying it needs another
> parameter. I added , NULL to the end and it compiled but I get a kernal
> oops when I try to run ipvsadm -A -t ...

LVS is not yet ported to the Zerocopy TCP/IP patches

> Anyone know a fix?
>
> -Matt
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Matthew S. Crocker
> Vice President / Internet Division Email: matthew@crocker.com
> Crocker Communications Phone: (413) 587-3350
> PO BOX 710 Fax: (413) 587-3352
> Greenfield, MA 01302-0710 http://www.crocker.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>

Re: Bug in ip_vs_conn.c missing parameter line 969: [ In reply to ]

john at antefacto

Mar 13, 2001, 10:50 AM

Post #3 of 9 (995 views)

On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 12:54:33PM -0500, Matthew S. Crocker mentioned:
> > LVS is not yet ported to the Zerocopy TCP/IP patches
> And that means?? Should I not use the Alan Cox patches? Would it work
> fine with a stock 2.4.2 kernel?

I don't think it works with netfilter's masquerading either.

Kate

--
When I say 'free', I mean 'free': free from bond, of chain or command:
to go where you will, even to Mordor, Saruman, if you desire. "
-- Gandalf, paraphrasing the choice between Free and Non-free software

Re: Bug in ip_vs_conn.c missing parameter line 969: [ In reply to ]

matthew at crocker

Mar 13, 2001, 10:54 AM

Post #4 of 9 (994 views)

On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Julian Anastasov wrote:

> > I'm trying to build ipvs-0.2.5 on linux 2.4.2-ac20 and it fails with a
> > problem in ipvs/ip_vs_conn.c on line 969: saying it needs another
> > parameter. I added , NULL to the end and it compiled but I get a kernal
> > oops when I try to run ipvsadm -A -t ...
>
> LVS is not yet ported to the Zerocopy TCP/IP patches

And that means?? Should I not use the Alan Cox patches? Would it work
fine with a stock 2.4.2 kernel?

-Matt

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew S. Crocker
Vice President / Internet Division Email: matthew@crocker.com
Crocker Communications Phone: (413) 587-3350
PO BOX 710 Fax: (413) 587-3352
Greenfield, MA 01302-0710 http://www.crocker.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Bug in ip_vs_conn.c missing parameter line 969: [ In reply to ]

Mar 13, 2001, 11:01 AM

Post #5 of 9 (994 views)

Hello,

On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Matthew S. Crocker wrote:

> > LVS is not yet ported to the Zerocopy TCP/IP patches
>
> And that means?? Should I not use the Alan Cox patches? Would it work
> fine with a stock 2.4.2 kernel?

My last (little) test was with 2.4.2

> -Matt
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Matthew S. Crocker
> Vice President / Internet Division Email: matthew@crocker.com
> Crocker Communications Phone: (413) 587-3350
> PO BOX 710 Fax: (413) 587-3352
> Greenfield, MA 01302-0710 http://www.crocker.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>

Re: Bug in ip_vs_conn.c missing parameter line 969: [ In reply to ]

Mar 13, 2001, 11:07 AM

Post #6 of 9 (994 views)

Hello,

On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, John P . Looney wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 12:54:33PM -0500, Matthew S. Crocker mentioned:
> > > LVS is not yet ported to the Zerocopy TCP/IP patches
> > And that means?? Should I not use the Alan Cox patches? Would it work
> > fine with a stock 2.4.2 kernel?
>
> I don't think it works with netfilter's masquerading either.

Hm, more information, please!

> Kate
>
> --
> When I say 'free', I mean 'free': free from bond, of chain or command:
> to go where you will, even to Mordor, Saruman, if you desire. "
> -- Gandalf, paraphrasing the choice between Free and Non-free software

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>

Re: Bug in ip_vs_conn.c missing parameter line 969: [ In reply to ]

john at antefacto

Mar 13, 2001, 11:12 AM

Post #7 of 9 (995 views)

On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 08:07:57PM +0200, Julian Anastasov mentioned:
> > I don't think it works with netfilter's masquerading either.
> Hm, more information, please!

On some tests I did with it, it panicked, hard-hung or just didn't work
at various times. I had a look in the mailing lists, and it seems that
it's a known problem...

Kate

--
When I say 'free', I mean 'free': free from bond, of chain or command:
to go where you will, even to Mordor, Saruman, if you desire. "
-- Gandalf, paraphrasing the choice between Free and Non-free software

Re: Bug in ip_vs_conn.c missing parameter line 969: [ In reply to ]

Mar 13, 2001, 12:05 PM

Post #8 of 9 (999 views)

Hello,

On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, John P . Looney wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 08:07:57PM +0200, Julian Anastasov mentioned:
> > > I don't think it works with netfilter's masquerading either.
> > Hm, more information, please!
>
> On some tests I did with it, it panicked, hard-hung or just didn't work
> at various times. I had a look in the mailing lists, and it seems that
> it's a known problem...

Oops outputs and problem descriptions are welcome. I don't know
for problems in 0.2.5 except that 0.2.6 will come with a fix for a little
problem.

> Kate

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>

Re: Bug in ip_vs_conn.c missing parameter line 969: [ In reply to ]

john at antefacto

Mar 13, 2001, 12:14 PM

Post #9 of 9 (997 views)

On Tue, Mar 13, 2001 at 09:05:29PM +0200, Julian Anastasov mentioned:
> Oops outputs and problem descriptions are welcome. I don't know
> for problems in 0.2.5 except that 0.2.6 will come with a fix for a little
> problem.

If I go back to it, I'll send you in plenty (though I think we're going
to go with the iptables BALANCE module, with a few simple extenions)..

Kate

--
When I say 'free', I mean 'free': free from bond, of chain or command:
to go where you will, even to Mordor, Saruman, if you desire. "
-- Gandalf, paraphrasing the choice between Free and Non-free software