Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

34753 discussions

Any experience with eSATA and port multiplier...?
by John Doe 21 Feb '12

21 Feb '12

Hey, just bought an eSATA/USB dual drive docking station and my CentOS 5 can only see one drive at a time... Any one knows if there are specific parameters to set somewhere? Or do I need a more recent kernel (like upgrading to CentOS 6?) The docking is a Sharkoon Quickport Duo v2 + 2 drives + 1 eSATA cable... http://www.sharkoon.com/?q=en/content/sata-quickport-duo-v2 The eSATA controller is an HighPpoint PciE 2 ports combo eSATA/USB with (supposedly) port-multiplier support Apparently based on an Silicon image Sil 3132 Seems like the port multiplier part does not work correctly... kernel: ata7: SATA link up 1.5 Gbps (SStatus 113 SControl 10) kernel: ata7.15: Port Multiplier 1.1, 0x197b:0x2352 r0, 2 ports, feat 0x0/0x0 kernel: ata7.15: Asynchronous notification not supported, hotplug won't kernel: work on fan-out ports. Use warm-plug instead. kernel: ata7.00: hard resetting link The logs are full of "hard resetting link", "softreset failed" and other "failed to reset PMP, giving up" I did not try to reboot yet... Would be a pain to have to reboot every time I need to plug drives. :/ I am not the only one... http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/SuSE/2011-10/msg00055.html He has a kernel 2.6.37.6-0.7 and it still fails so I am wondering if upgrading to CentOS 6.x would help at all... Thx, JD

3 3

Race Condition In PHP Session Handler
by Adam Tauno Williams 20 Feb '12

20 Feb '12

php-5.3.3-3.el6_2.6.x86_64 2.6.32-220.4.2.el6.x86_64 After some testing we moved our production PHP intranet site from an old server to a new CentOS 6.2 instance running the mentioned versions. At first it worked well and then user's started to experience a hung site. Upon some digging it appears that the PHP module is getting stuck in a race condition regarding the sessions file - [root@yannigan-orange fd]# strace -p 22607 Process 22607 attached - interrupt to quit flock(53, LOCK_EX^C <unfinished ...> where file handle 53 is ... lr-x------. 1 root root 64 Feb 17 15:24 52 -> /opt/informix/msg/en_us/0333/cli.iem lrwx------. 1 root root 64 Feb 17 15:24 53 -> /var/lib/php/session/sess_ulgsl9joplobb9o4fue3n2e1k0 l-wx------. 1 root root 64 Feb 17 15:24 6 -> pipe:[660246] .... The PHP session file. Originally I had a tmpfs mounted for the session files. I removed that and used the underlying filesystem. Same issue. I disabled APC. Same issue. Switching the the memcache session handler resolved the issue, although that may be less optimal. But this seems like a PHP bug. Tips, comments, pointers? Backtrace of a hung httpd - #0 0x00007fa175af9be7 in flock () from /lib64/libc.so.6 #1 0x00007fa16cb59dfc in ?? () from /etc/httpd/modules/libphp5.so #2 0x00007fa16cb5a047 in ?? () from /etc/httpd/modules/libphp5.so #3 0x00007fa16cb56e4c in php_session_start () from /etc/httpd/modules/libphp5.so #4 0x00007fa16cb57559 in ?? () from /etc/httpd/modules/libphp5.so #5 0x00007fa16cc9afe8 in ?? () from /etc/httpd/modules/libphp5.so #6 0x00007fa16cc72320 in execute () from /etc/httpd/modules/libphp5.so #7 0x00007fa16cc4ca5d in zend_execute_scripts () from /etc/httpd/modules/libphp5.so #8 0x00007fa16cbfacf8 in php_execute_script () from /etc/httpd/modules/libphp5.so #9 0x00007fa16ccd59a5 in ?? () from /etc/httpd/modules/libphp5.so #10 0x00007fa17751da60 in ap_run_handler () #11 0x00007fa17752131e in ap_invoke_handler () #12 0x00007fa17752c990 in ap_process_request () #13 0x00007fa177529858 in ?? () #14 0x00007fa177525568 in ap_run_process_connection () #15 0x00007fa177531767 in ?? () #16 0x00007fa177531a7a in ?? () #17 0x00007fa177531dab in ap_mpm_run () #18 0x00007fa177509900 in main () -- System & Network Administrator [ LPI & NCLA ] <http://www.whitemiceconsulting.com> OpenGroupware Developer <http://www.opengroupware.us> Adam Tauno Williams

1 1

centos security
by Al 19 Feb '12

19 Feb '12

Any suggestions on what to run on a centos box to verify that the server isn't compromised or being sniffed? Thanks!

4 4

OFF TOPIC. The best course of CentOS in USA
by Edson - PMSS 19 Feb '12

19 Feb '12

I would like to know which all of you point me as the best training course of CentOS in the world or in the USA. I am a Brazilian and I would like to have this information. I have a good background in GNU/Linux, CentOS and Debian like operating systems, network and general knowledge. I would like to know a deep course about all this subject. I would appreciate any kind of information in advance. Thanks all! -- Edson D. Amaral --------------- Listen to the voices inside of you, they will tell you what is right and what is wrong, they will bring you happiness and peace; if you don't listen to them they can create anxiety, discontentment, and unhappiness. Ouça as vozes dentro de você, elas vão te dizer o que é certo e o que é errado, elas vão lhe trazer felicidade e paz, se você não ouví-las, elas poderão criar ansiedade, insatisfação e infelicidade. Bert Wilson The Five Secrets you must discover before you die, pg. 155

2 1

Re: [CentOS] centos security
by Les Bell 19 Feb '12

19 Feb '12

Al <mailinglist(a)theflux.net> wrote: >> Any suggestions on what to run on a centos box to verify that the server isn't compromised or being sniffed? Thanks! << For "isn't compromised", you need a host integrity verification system like Tripwire or AIDE (which is in the base repo). Expect to have to tweak the config to cover the stuff you've got installed. You can detect sniffing by checking for promiscuous interfaces on the LAN - use proDETECT (http://sourceforge.net/projects/prodetect/) or a similar tool for this purpose. Alternatively, if you have the time and resources, you could run a full-blown network intrusion detection system like Snort (http://www.snort.org) Best, --- Les Bell [http://www.lesbell.com.au] Tel: +61 2 9451 1144

3 2

Sound drop out with totem. mplayer Can't open audio device /dev/dsp
by Mark LaPierre 19 Feb '12

19 Feb '12

Hey all. This morning I found that my audio playback is randomly sprinkled with sound skips and dropouts. I went to /var/log/yum.log and found this: Feb 09 20:18:22 Updated: lame-3.99.4-2.el6.rf.i686 I'm not saying that caused the problem but it's all I could find that changed. When I ls in /dev there is no dsp entry. That would explain why mplayer Can't open audio device /dev/dsp. I don't know why there is no /dev/dsp. MPlayer 1.0rc4-4.4.6 aplay just makes a nasty hiss. aplay: version 1.0.21 I'm using pulesaudio $ rpm -qa | grep pulseaudio alsa-plugins-pulseaudio-1.0.21-3.el6.i686 pulseaudio-module-bluetooth-0.9.21-13.el6.i686 pulseaudio-0.9.21-13.el6.i686 pulseaudio-libs-0.9.21-13.el6.i686 pulseaudio-utils-0.9.21-13.el6.i686 pulseaudio-module-gconf-0.9.21-13.el6.i686 pulseaudio-module-x11-0.9.21-13.el6.i686 pulseaudio-gdm-hooks-0.9.21-13.el6.i686 pulseaudio-libs-glib2-0.9.21-13.el6.i686 $ uname -a Linux mushroom.patch 2.6.32-220.4.1.el6.i686 #1 SMP Mon Jan 23 22:37:12 GMT 2012 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux CentOS 6.2 Any of these may, or may not, be related. -- _ °v° /(_)\ ^ ^ Mark LaPierre Registerd Linux user No #267004

5 11

Re: [CentOS] SPF Record questions
by Jonathan Vomacka 18 Feb '12

18 Feb '12

On 2/18/2012 12:53 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 18.02.2012 18:33, schrieb Jonathan Vomacka: >>>>> -all will cause some MTA's to reject >>> >>> then they are badly broken >>> >>>>> ~all is better to use >>> >>> this means SPF is in testing mode and not enforced >>> some servers may use them for scoring but they will >>> never be used for blocking spoofed messages from >>> wrong sender-addresses >>> _____________________ >>> >>> however, below are SPF-compliant records working since >>> years for some hundret domains, maybe your BIND-version >>> does not support record-type "SPF" (Recent Fedora does) >>> >>> RFC says a SPF-compliant domain should use both >>> >>> and yes i prefer ip4 instead A/MX because this is enforcing >>> a lower count of dns requests at all and our internal dns >>> baclend is able to translate configured hostnames to IP >>> while generating the zone-files from the database >>> _____________________ >>> >>> @ IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all" >>> @ IN SPF "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all" >>> >>> subdomain1 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all" >>> subdomain1 IN SPF "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all" >>> >> >> Reindl, >> >> What about if someone uses a mobile device to send e-mail? > > what is the difference between a mobile device and a customer > at home on his workstation? there is no one! bot have to use > the SMTP for their account > >> Would ~all be better? > > it is making less trouble for people using their ISP-MTA > but this people are acting wrong and if you want to enforce > SPF they must not do this, if you want life easy for people > who acting wrong you CAN NOT enforce SPF at all > >> I also generated the following SPF >> using a wizard. Let me know if this looks correct: >> >> teamwarfare.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx a:mail.teamwarfare.com a:mail2.teamwarfare.com ip4:66.90.73.80 >> ip4:216.250.250.148 ~all" > > looks OK, without enforcing > > i made the expierience in the last years that A/MX in SPF makes > often troubles since there are more dns-requestes need on the > receiver and this is raised up with every entry of these types > in your SPF - ip4 does not need additional requests > > they often produced false positives, never seen again since changed to ip4 > >> I wouldn't need an "include:" or "ptr" statement in this right? I would told "include:" was to include OTHER >> domains that are allowed to send e-mail, but then again I see some people writing the domain again as an include. >> Also is PTR good to use or not? > > no idea > > i am using strictly ip4-entries and do not mixing domains > all users are instructed to use "mail.ourdomain.tld" and > there are not existing dns-records in customer domains as > also all MX-records of them are poining FQ to our spam-firewall > Reindl, I am sorry to ask this, but is it possible you can modify my PTR record that I submitted above with how you would enter it into BIND? I want to make sure I accurately enter this.

2 1

Bind DNS SPF Record
by Jonathan Vomacka 18 Feb '12

18 Feb '12

I know this is a bit off topic from CentOS itself, but are there any DNS experts that would be able to e-mail me on the side and assist with some questions I have regarding TXT/SPF records? I want to ensure my mail doesn't bounce.

2 1

Re: [CentOS] SPF Record questions
by Jonathan Vomacka 18 Feb '12

18 Feb '12

On 2/18/2012 12:05 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 18.02.2012 17:53, schrieb Jonathan Vomacka: >> I am inquiring about how to setup a proper SPF record. I know there are >> SPF wizards/generators available but each seem to have a different >> "opinion" of what should be included and what should not be included. >> >> Let me give you a scenario of my setup, and hopefully someone can help >> me out. >> >> My domain is: test.com >> My mailserver hostname is: mail.host.com which also has a MATCHING PTR >> record >> mail.host.com (for example) resolves to 50.1.1.1 and 50.1.1.1 resolves >> to mail.host.com >> >> This is a STANDALONE mail server which will receive and send email >> without any VIP's or load balancing. There is however one additional >> host that will send out mail from the domain but it wont be receiving >> mail, it will only be used as an SMTP (outbound only) server attached to >> a website automailer which is on a seperate webserver... It only >> generates error reports and sends them out... so technically it isn't a >> full mail server but it will be sending (outbound only) mail on behalf >> of the domain. >> >> The additional host is: mail2.test.com which resolves to 50.2.2.2 and >> there is a Matching PTR. >> >> These are the ONLY mail servers and IP addresses that will be sending >> out mail from the test.com domain. Some websites say I should use -all >> and others say -all will cause some MTA's to reject and ~all is better >> to use even if those are the only two hosts sending out mail. >> >> Would you be able to assist with a solid SPF record? > >>> -all will cause some MTA's to reject > > then they are badly broken > >>> ~all is better to use > > this means SPF is in testing mode and not enforced > some servers may use them for scoring but they will > never be used for blocking spoofed messages from > wrong sender-addresses > _____________________ > > however, below are SPF-compliant records working since > years for some hundret domains, maybe your BIND-version > does not support record-type "SPF" (Recent Fedora does) > > RFC says a SPF-compliant domain should use both > > and yes i prefer ip4 instead A/MX because this is enforcing > a lower count of dns requests at all and our internal dns > baclend is able to translate configured hostnames to IP > while generating the zone-files from the database > _____________________ > > @ IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all" > @ IN SPF "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all" > > subdomain1 IN TXT "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all" > subdomain1 IN SPF "v=spf1 ip4:91.118.73.15 ip4:91.118.73.20 -all" > > > Reindl, What about if someone uses a mobile device to send e-mail? Would ~all be better? I also generated the following SPF using a wizard. Let me know if this looks correct: teamwarfare.com. IN TXT "v=spf1 a mx a:mail.teamwarfare.com a:mail2.teamwarfare.com ip4:66.90.73.80 ip4:216.250.250.148 ~all" I wouldn't need an "include:" or "ptr" statement in this right? I would told "include:" was to include OTHER domains that are allowed to send e-mail, but then again I see some people writing the domain again as an include. Also is PTR good to use or not?

1 0

SPF Record questions
by Jonathan Vomacka 18 Feb '12

18 Feb '12

I am inquiring about how to setup a proper SPF record. I know there are SPF wizards/generators available but each seem to have a different "opinion" of what should be included and what should not be included. Let me give you a scenario of my setup, and hopefully someone can help me out. My domain is: test.com My mailserver hostname is: mail.host.com which also has a MATCHING PTR record mail.host.com (for example) resolves to 50.1.1.1 and 50.1.1.1 resolves to mail.host.com This is a STANDALONE mail server which will receive and send email without any VIP's or load balancing. There is however one additional host that will send out mail from the domain but it wont be receiving mail, it will only be used as an SMTP (outbound only) server attached to a website automailer which is on a seperate webserver... It only generates error reports and sends them out... so technically it isn't a full mail server but it will be sending (outbound only) mail on behalf of the domain. The additional host is: mail2.test.com which resolves to 50.2.2.2 and there is a Matching PTR. These are the ONLY mail servers and IP addresses that will be sending out mail from the test.com domain. Some websites say I should use -all and others say -all will cause some MTA's to reject and ~all is better to use even if those are the only two hosts sending out mail. Would you be able to assist with a solid SPF record?

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss