On Monday 14 January 2008 6:04:28 pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:07:46 EST, Paul Moore said:
> > http://git.infradead.org/?p=users/pcmoore/lblnet-2.6_testing;a=commitdiff
> >;h=02f1c89d6e36507476f78108a3dcc78538be460b
>
> Initial testing indicates that 2.6.24-rc6-mm1 plus this
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:07:46 EST, Paul Moore said:
>
> http://git.infradead.org/?p=users/pcmoore/lblnet-2.6_testing;a=commitdiff;h=02f1c89d6e36507476f78108a3dcc78538be460b
Initial testing indicates that 2.6.24-rc6-mm1 plus this one commit is
behaving itself correctly - my Tcl test case that reliab
On Monday 14 January 2008 2:37:02 pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:07:46 EST, Paul Moore said:
> > There have been quite a few changes in lblnet-2.6_testing since
> > 2.6.24-rc6-mm1 so I would recommend taking the whole tree. I'm also not
> > quite sure if
>
> Weird. I did a '
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:07:46 EST, Paul Moore said:
> There have been quite a few changes in lblnet-2.6_testing since
> 2.6.24-rc6-mm1
> so I would recommend taking the whole tree. I'm also not quite sure if
Weird. I did a 'git clone
git://git.infradead.org/users/pcmoore/lblnet-2.6_testing'
in
On Monday 14 January 2008 1:50:39 pm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:22:10 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Apparently the only new commit in there since the tree that was in
> > 24-rc6-mm1 is 5d95575903fd3865b884952bd93c339d48725c33 adding some
> > warning printk's. Would it be
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:22:10 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Apparently the only new commit in there since the tree that was in
> 24-rc6-mm1 is 5d95575903fd3865b884952bd93c339d48725c33 adding some warning
> printk's. Would it be more productive to test against the full tree, or
> leaving out the on
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:05:48 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I'm pulling git://git.infradead.org/users/pcmoore/lblnet-2.6_testing at the
> moment, and seeing if there's already a fix in there for this.
Apparently the only new commit in there since the tree that was in
24-rc6-mm1 is 5d95575903fd38
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:36:40 EST, Paul Moore said:
> Are you still only seeing these problems on loopback? I can't help but
> wonder
> if this is the skb_clone() problem where it wasn't copying skb->iif causing
> SELinux to silently drop the packets.
Yes, I've only spotted it on loopback. Th
On Monday 14 January 2008 11:15:38 am [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:35:33 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > I'm seeing problems with Sendmail on 24-rc6-mm1, where the main Sendmail
> > is listening on ::1/25, and Fetchmail connects to 127.0.0.1:25 to inject
> > mail it has just f
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 02:35:33 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I'm seeing problems with Sendmail on 24-rc6-mm1, where the main Sendmail is
> listening on ::1/25, and Fetchmail connects to 127.0.0.1:25 to inject mail it
> has just fetched from an outside server via IMAP - it will often just hang and
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Any ideas?
Please provide a packet dump on both sides (or at least the sender
side).
Thanks,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.or
I'm seeing problems with Sendmail on 24-rc6-mm1, where the main Sendmail is
listening on ::1/25, and Fetchmail connects to 127.0.0.1:25 to inject mail it
has just fetched from an outside server via IMAP - it will often just hang and
not make any further progress. Looking at netstat shows something
12 matches
Mail list logo
