Discuss September 2016

discuss@lists.centos.org

118 participants
96 discussions

Centos v6.8 and double received bytes
by Steve Malenfant 02 Sep '16

02 Sep '16

I'm observing double the amount of "recv" bytes in latest Centos v6.8 with ixgbe 4.2.1-k. Anybody seeing the same? $ ethtool -i em1 driver: ixgbe version: 4.2.1-k $ uname -an Linux chndcdmid01.rd.ph.cox.net 2.6.32-642.4.2.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Aug 23 19:58:13 UTC 2016 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Doing comparison on 2 days at same hour just to show the difference. This is an HTTP cache server, having higher RX than TX means something is bad... We don't rely much on the RECV side, but our graph showed a huge difference between upgrades. Before upgrade (v6.7, 4.0.1-k) : 07:00:01 PM IFACE rxpck/s txpck/s rxkB/s txkB/s rxcmp/s txcmp/s rxmcst/s 07:00:01 PM em1 3971.90 5384.15 14981.65 26376.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 07:10:01 PM em1 3918.26 5367.79 13136.21 25528.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 07:20:01 PM em1 3868.94 5273.08 11997.37 25155.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 07:30:01 PM em1 3895.50 5597.56 10851.74 28583.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 07:40:01 PM em1 3956.80 5706.12 12230.66 29553.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 07:50:01 PM em1 4016.39 5801.69 11957.35 29979.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 After upgrade (v6.8, 4.2.1-k) : 07:00:01 PM IFACE rxpck/s txpck/s rxkB/s txkB/s rxcmp/s txcmp/s rxmcst/s 07:00:01 PM em1 20857.40 8736.13 59710.07 35102.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 07:10:01 PM em1 19508.00 8429.40 58120.70 36036.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 07:20:01 PM em1 19128.20 8471.45 55502.07 37312.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 07:30:01 PM em1 19402.55 8329.93 53586.60 35386.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 07:40:01 PM em1 19188.27 8105.83 51463.72 33585.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 07:50:01 PM em1 19544.32 7843.08 49590.64 30981.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 Steve

1 0

Perl Unsafe Module Path Handling Directory Traversal Vulnerability ( CVE-2016-1238)
by Sidharth Sharma 01 Sep '16

01 Sep '16

Hello Experts, When we can expect Security Update for Perl Vulnerability CVE-2016-1238 on CentOS 6.8 and 7.2? -- With Thanks & Regards: Sidharth Sharma

3 2

None
by None 01 Sep '16

01 Sep '16

by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id u81EAcLM001706 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <centos(a)centos.org>; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:10:39 -0400 To: centos(a)centos.org References: <d059a28c-b866-5056-dda6-29e3077ca907(a)mit.edu> <8d10f9b1-0ed9-0217-ae0e-726acd1d9a87(a)gmail.com> <8d59038f-3dbe-5bff-9673-fbada1d3f31c(a)mit.edu> <b9abfd5a5a37f29bff085aae6174877f.squirrel(a)host290.hostmonster.com> <d9ac7e12-3283-ea9e-a5b0-5dcd8d27d87d(a)mit.edu> <CAJCQCtTfr6rvPGH7uMNzYE9-Q+BfZ784a5n=4S5NekA7O8VxAA(a)mail.gmail.com> From: Pat Haley <phaley(a)mit.edu> Message-ID: <c29b1a4f-a3d5-b61e-7206-b6e32a89f72c(a)mit.edu> Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 10:10:37 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <CAJCQCtTfr6rvPGH7uMNzYE9-Q+BfZ784a5n=4S5NekA7O8VxAA(a)mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrBIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixG6novvA7ES4wbKPehbLzixgdmD0WNk2 mTmAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoEro2v1ZZaCOfwVK46dZmxgPMPTxcjJISFgInF78VLGLkYuDiGB NiaJ20cnsEM4Jxglzs1sYoNwDjBJrJ+7ig2kRVjAUeLFy+1gtoiAqETP4ldQRXeYJI60zQJL sAkoSKy7dYYdxOYVsJL4d3IFI4jNIqAi8aJxLiuILSoQIXFr1UdGiBpBiZMzn7CA2JwCgRLr Lh1iArGZBWwl7szdzQxhy0tsfzuHeQIj/ywkLbOQlM1CUraAkXkVo2xKbpVubmJmTnFqsm5x cmJeXmqRrrFebmaJXmpK6SZGUABySvLtYJzU4H2IUYCDUYmHl8PoRLgQa2JZcWXuIUZJDiYl UV61uOPhQnxJ+SmVGYnFGfFFpTmpxYcYJTiYlUR4D5sAlfOmJFZWpRblw6SkOViUxHm7ZhwI FxJITyxJzU5NLUgtgsnKcHAoSfA+NwVqFCxKTU+tSMvMKUFIM3FwggznARruCVLDW1yQmFuc mQ6RP8WoKCXOuw9kqwBIIqM0D64XnCDU2A+9YhQHekWY9xNIOw8wucB1vwIazAQ0uOTacZDB JYkIKakGxoOFsj1Rp4xfa7cUW2gsW9+qayH73/TzFO/+g6u3Wb6v+HPW0z8uKeiJLaPmsu11 l026ZTQmeqT62Nhkb1h4eObdzGncssKrr2y7/M3yebNoiKDarJbj2px6ziePT344Q5vRWchE c7qp9Kldn943ef0s3M7aGtRsOuFFWdDBrh/ap1R3TYrmUWIpzkg01GIuKk4EAG7WrU3rAgAA Subject: Re: [CentOS] group write permissions not being respected X-BeenThere: centos(a)centos.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: CentOS mailing list <centos.centos.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.centos.org/mailman/options/centos>, <mailto:centos-request@centos.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/> List-Post: <mailto:centos@centos.org> List-Help: <mailto:centos-request@centos.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos>, <mailto:centos-request@centos.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 14:10:40 -0000 For the enforcing=0, is that referring to SELinux? If so, we are not running SELinux. On 08/31/2016 11:38 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Try booting with enforcing=0 and if that fixes it, you need to find out > what security label is needed for gluster. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the enforcing=0, is that referring to SELinux? If so, we are not running SELinux. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Chances are it's easiest to use -o context= mount option on the brick, but > if the brick is not exclusive to gluster you'll need chcon -R. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We aren't sure exactly what you mean by this second paragraph, can you expand on this? Are these two exclusive options exclusive? We aren't sure what you what you mean by "exclusive to gluster" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > If that's not it, maybe try the gluster client instead of using NFS. See if > you get a different result that narrows down what's going on. > > My vague recollection is for Samba, without the correct SELinux label, I > could neither read nor write. > > > Chris Murphy > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS(a)centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Pat Haley Email: phaley(a)mit.edu Center for Ocean Engineering Phone: (617) 253-6824 Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Fax: (617) 253-8125 MIT, Room 5-213 http://web.mit.edu/phaley/www/ 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139-4301

1 0

Bind Vulnerability CVE-2016-2775
by Sidharth Sharma 01 Sep '16

01 Sep '16

Hello Experts, When we can expect Security Update for Bind Vulnerability on Centos 6.8/7.2? ISC BIND Lightweight Resolver Protocol Req Processing Dos Vulnerability: CVE-2016-2775 -- With Thanks & Regards: Sidharth Sharma

4 3

"Windows" share issue; access via smb:// fails, "mount -t cifs" works
by Toralf Lund 01 Sep '16

01 Sep '16

Hi, Is anyone here using smb:// URLs to access "Windows" shares? I've been doing this for a while with common file systems at work, and it used to work just fine. Then I while back, I started getting issues; I will now just keep getting asked for a password when I try to access something through smb://. I thought at first that this meant there had been some kind of change related to permissions on the shares, but now I find that I can mount them just fine using "mount -t cifs". In other words, I get: gvfs-mount smb://mydomain\;toralf.lund@theserver/myshare Password required for share myshare on theserver Password: Password required for share myshare on theserver Password: Password required for share myshare on theserver Password: [ I enter the correct password, but gvs-mount keeps asking... Behaviour is the same if I try to open the URL in the file manager instead. ] mount -t cifs -o user=toralf.lund,workgroup=mydomain //theserver/myshare /tmp_mnt/ Password: [ At this stage the filesystem is mounted, as long as I enter the correct password. ] Does anyone have any idea what is going on here? Why does the VFS mount fail when mount.cifs works on the same share? Is there a difference in the way authentication works, or something? Has there been a change to the smb support that might explain this? This is on a CentOS 6 x86_64 installation with all updates applied. - Toralf

1 1

Re: [CentOS] group write permissions not being respected
by Chris Murphy 01 Sep '16

01 Sep '16

Try booting with enforcing=0 and if that fixes it, you need to find out what security label is needed for gluster. Chances are it's easiest to use -o context= mount option on the brick, but if the brick is not exclusive to gluster you'll need chcon -R. If that's not it, maybe try the gluster client instead of using NFS. See if you get a different result that narrows down what's going on. My vague recollection is for Samba, without the correct SELinux label, I could neither read nor write. Chris Murphy

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss September 2016