[opensuse-kernel] FYI: WARNING: iputils is not very fresh, upgrade is recommended; bug in iputils or kernel?
According to the comment in the iputils code: --- /* Sigh, IP_RECVERR for raw socket * was broken until 2.4.9. So, we ignore * the first error and warn on the second. */ if (once++ == 1) fprintf(stderr, "\rWARNING: kernel is not very fresh, upgrade is recommended.\n"); ---- When I first saw the error I wondered how fresh my kernel had to be to pass iputils' tests, since I'm running on: Ishtar:packages/build/iputils-s20121221> uname -a Linux Ishtar 4.1.0-Isht-Van #2 SMP PREEMPT Tue Jun 23 07:52:09 PDT 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux So I looked at code Um... why is iputils thinking that 4.1.0 < 2.4.9 -- or that 4.1.0 is older than 2.4.9? I humbly submit that 4.1.0, released in 2015 is unquestionably 'fresher' than the date on iputils of 2012. Does this mean the check in iputils is faulty w/r/t new kernels, or do new kernels have a *SERIOUS* regression? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On 09/30/2015 07:51 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
According to the comment in the iputils code: --- /* Sigh, IP_RECVERR for raw socket * was broken until 2.4.9. So, we ignore * the first error and warn on the second. */ if (once++ == 1) fprintf(stderr, "\rWARNING: kernel is not very fresh, upgrade is recommended.\n");
---- When I first saw the error I wondered how fresh my kernel had to be to pass iputils' tests, since I'm running on:
Ishtar:packages/build/iputils-s20121221> uname -a Linux Ishtar 4.1.0-Isht-Van #2 SMP PREEMPT Tue Jun 23 07:52:09 PDT 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
So I looked at code Um... why is iputils thinking that 4.1.0 < 2.4.9 -- or that 4.1.0 is older than 2.4.9?
I humbly submit that 4.1.0, released in 2015 is unquestionably 'fresher' than the date on iputils of 2012.
Does this mean the check in iputils is faulty w/r/t new kernels, or do new kernels have a *SERIOUS* regression?
The new kernels *DO NOT* have a serious regression, at least concerning this issue. If you search for this error message, you will see that it is printed for several of the network utilities if things like ping and other simple utilitoes are unable to reach their destination. Usually it means that you had some kind of network problem. Larry -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
Larry Finger wrote:
On 09/30/2015 07:51 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Does this mean the check in iputils is faulty w/r/t new kernels, or do new kernels have a *SERIOUS* regression?
The new kernels *DO NOT* have a serious regression, at least concerning this issue. If you search for this error message, you will see that it is printed for several of the network utilities if things like ping and other simple utilitoes are unable to reach their destination. Usually it means that you had some kind of network problem.
In this case 'serious network problem' simply meant that the host was unreachable -- which was why I was trying to 'ping' it in the first place (i.e. debugging what seemed to be a simplistic network problem). I didn't SERIOUSLY consider it likely that it was a kernel problem given the age of the utils -- just a bit odd that I'd never seen this message before with the opensuse13.1 release but then do with the 13.2 release. Does 13.2 ping come from a different package than 13.1 ping? Seems like at the very least networking in 13.2 took a step backwards (the various ifconfig/ifup/ifdown utils -- different package, no longer work either, as they did change package sources -- seems configuring network interfaces in 13.2 requires 'dbus' -- which doesn't work over networks. Sorta retarded that network relies on dbus which I've never been able to get to work over a network (i.e. desktop logging into suse machine that expects to use 'dbus' to talk to foreign (over network) dbus. Nice step backward. If a network is going to require dbus to work, might be nice to make sure dbus over a network works first... *sigh* Interesting article: http://darkmatters.norsecorp.com/2015/09/30/cellular-damage/ referring to 'cell phones', but pertinent to any self-updating software that increases the threat surface. Seems like having networking rely on 'dbus', is opening another layer of threat surface. Problem with PC-(linux+MS) SW devel today, is it's all about decreasing user control over their own devices and giving control to outsiders -- which creates new vectors that can also, often, be used for security breaches (even MS's update-channel has been used as an intrusion vector). Aren't the boundaries between dbus and kdbus in constant flux? I wonder how long it will be until PC's have as many threat vectors as cellphones? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 02:51:02 +0200, Linda Walsh wrote:
According to the comment in the iputils code: --- /* Sigh, IP_RECVERR for raw socket * was broken until 2.4.9. So, we ignore * the first error and warn on the second. */ if (once++ == 1) fprintf(stderr, "\rWARNING: kernel is not very fresh, upgrade is recommended.\n");
---- When I first saw the error I wondered how fresh my kernel had to be to pass iputils' tests, since I'm running on:
Ishtar:packages/build/iputils-s20121221> uname -a Linux Ishtar 4.1.0-Isht-Van #2 SMP PREEMPT Tue Jun 23 07:52:09 PDT 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
So I looked at code Um... why is iputils thinking that 4.1.0 < 2.4.9 -- or that 4.1.0 is older than 2.4.9?
I humbly submit that 4.1.0, released in 2015 is unquestionably 'fresher' than the date on iputils of 2012.
Does this mean the check in iputils is faulty w/r/t new kernels, or do new kernels have a *SERIOUS* regression?
It's a bug of iputils, see boo#927831. Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org
participants (3)
-
Larry Finger -
Linda Walsh -
Takashi Iwai