Changing the subject line for good ...
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
On Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:23:51 AM Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. Starting 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a patch, or backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more nightmarish than before.
This one doesn't impact the CentOS core rebuild. It would/could impact CentOSPlus.
Yes, it _could_ affect the centosplus kernel. This point was addressed early on when RHEL-6 was released back in Nov 2010. See:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586
Point 2 (note 12051) is the one that is relevant. I welcome any feedback / suggestions for the proposed method I outlined there. While you are there, look also at the issues described for Point 3 (note 12052). Anyone can help in there as well. :)
So far, "luckily" centosplus kernels are "ahead of" the distro kernel in that they have been built and are available for testing (see note 12502).
Akemi
This is excellent information Akemi, provides opportunities for folks to dig in and specific information that is needed and where to go to learn more...Thanks! :)
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Akemi Yagi amyagi@gmail.com wrote:
Changing the subject line for good ...
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
On Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:23:51 AM Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. Starting 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a patch, or backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more nightmarish than before.
This one doesn't impact the CentOS core rebuild. It would/could impact
CentOSPlus.
Yes, it _could_ affect the centosplus kernel. This point was addressed early on when RHEL-6 was released back in Nov 2010. See:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586
Point 2 (note 12051) is the one that is relevant. I welcome any feedback / suggestions for the proposed method I outlined there. While you are there, look also at the issues described for Point 3 (note 12052). Anyone can help in there as well. :)
So far, "luckily" centosplus kernels are "ahead of" the distro kernel in that they have been built and are available for testing (see note 12502).
Akemi _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Tom Bishop wrote:
This is excellent information Akemi, provides opportunities for folks to dig in and specific information that is needed and where to go to learn more...Thanks! :)
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Akemi Yagi <amyagi@gmail.com mailto:amyagi@gmail.com> wrote:
Changing the subject line for good ... On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu <mailto:lowen@pari.edu>> wrote: > On Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:23:51 AM Brunner, Brian T. wrote: >> AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. Starting >> 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a patch, or >> backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more >> nightmarish than before. > > This one doesn't impact the CentOS core rebuild. It would/could impact CentOSPlus. Yes, it _could_ affect the centosplus kernel. This point was addressed early on when RHEL-6 was released back in Nov 2010. See: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586 Point 2 (note 12051) is the one that is relevant. I welcome any feedback / suggestions for the proposed method I outlined there. While you are there, look also at the issues described for Point 3 (note 12052). Anyone can help in there as well. :) So far, "luckily" centosplus kernels are "ahead of" the distro kernel in that they have been built and are available for testing (see note 12502).
This post has led me to lots of information about the CentOS build process and makes me offer the following comment:-/
PLEASE ALL - have a look around the wiki and bugs - there is heaps of information about the status of the various build processes and even how to do it yourself - at least from a getting started level - I'm sure once one gets into it there would be some questions, but just like here - if one shows what has been tried, and the specific problem encountered, and what attempts have been made to resolve the problem - then help would be available to assist you in the forward direction.
Rather than making a nuisance and noise on the lists and expecting digested sound bites to appease your thirst for information from the folk that do the work - go have a look.
It is readily apparent that the build process is very reliant upon having "all one's ducks in a row" and one minor version change in a dependent source file means the output will not be the binary match with the upstream provider that CentOS delivers. Thus the process gives new meaning to the word "iterative".
My thanks to all those doing the painstaking work of making it work right the first time - I for one, am not detail oriented enough to do this kind of work, and so I suspect are many of those on this list. Please do not get discouraged by those who lash out on the various forum but accept this heart felt THANK YOU from a long time user that appreciates all that you do.
I see comments about not being able to rely upon CentOS for business use - I beg to differ, I use CentOS for my business and am very satisfied with the quality of the product. There are certainly some business uses where the time-frame of the CentOS build process is a problem - if that is the case then there are alternatives - they do cost money. Pay your money and make your choice - no money.......accept what is CentOS and see if there is somewhere you can contribute to a very informative and helpful infrastructure - preferably in a polite and positive manner. Thanks for reading.
Akemi _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org <mailto:CentOS@centos.org> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Rob Kampen wrote:
Tom Bishop wrote:
This is excellent information Akemi, provides opportunities for folks to dig in and specific information that is needed and where to go to learn more...Thanks! :)
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Akemi Yagi <amyagi@gmail.com mailto:amyagi@gmail.com> wrote:
Changing the subject line for good ... On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu <mailto:lowen@pari.edu>> wrote: > On Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:23:51 AM Brunner, Brian T. wrote: >> AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. Starting >> 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out apatch, or >> backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more >> nightmarish than before. > > This one doesn't impact the CentOS core rebuild. It would/could impact CentOSPlus.
Yes, it _could_ affect the centosplus kernel. This point wasaddressed early on when RHEL-6 was released back in Nov 2010. See:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586 Point 2 (note 12051) is the one that is relevant. I welcome any feedback / suggestions for the proposed method I outlined there. While you are there, look also at the issues described for Point 3 (note 12052). Anyone can help in there as well. :) So far, "luckily" centosplus kernels are "ahead of" the distro kernel in that they have been built and are available for testing (see note 12502).This post has led me to lots of information about the CentOS build process and makes me offer the following comment:-/
PLEASE ALL - have a look around the wiki and bugs - there is heaps of information about the status of the various build processes and even how to do it yourself - at least from a getting started level - I'm sure once one gets into it there would be some questions, but just like here
- if one shows what has been tried, and the specific problem
encountered, and what attempts have been made to resolve the problem - then help would be available to assist you in the forward direction.
Rather than making a nuisance and noise on the lists and expecting digested sound bites to appease your thirst for information from the folk that do the work - go have a look.
It is readily apparent that the build process is very reliant upon having "all one's ducks in a row" and one minor version change in a dependent source file means the output will not be the binary match with the upstream provider that CentOS delivers. Thus the process gives new meaning to the word "iterative".
My thanks to all those doing the painstaking work of making it work right the first time - I for one, am not detail oriented enough to do this kind of work, and so I suspect are many of those on this list. Please do not get discouraged by those who lash out on the various forum but accept this heart felt THANK YOU from a long time user that appreciates all that you do.
I see comments about not being able to rely upon CentOS for business use
- I beg to differ, I use CentOS for my business and am very satisfied
with the quality of the product. There are certainly some business uses where the time-frame of the CentOS build process is a problem - if that is the case then there are alternatives - they do cost money. Pay your money and make your choice - no money.......accept what is CentOS and see if there is somewhere you can contribute to a very informative and helpful infrastructure - preferably in a polite and positive manner. Thanks for reading.
+1000
On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 22:56:24 +0200 Ljubomir Ljubojevic office@plnet.rs wrote:
Rob Kampen wrote:
Tom Bishop wrote:
This is excellent information Akemi, provides opportunities for folks to dig in and specific information that is needed and where to go to learn more...Thanks! :)
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Akemi Yagi <amyagi@gmail.com mailto:amyagi@gmail.com> wrote:
Changing the subject line for good ... On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu <mailto:lowen@pari.edu>> wrote: > On Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:23:51 AM Brunner, Brian T. > wrote: >> AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. Starting >> 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out apatch, or >> backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more >> nightmarish than before. > > This one doesn't impact the CentOS core rebuild. It > would/could impact CentOSPlus.
Yes, it _could_ affect the centosplus kernel. This point wasaddressed early on when RHEL-6 was released back in Nov 2010. See:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586 Point 2 (note 12051) is the one that is relevant. I welcome any feedback / suggestions for the proposed method I outlinedthere. While you are there, look also at the issues described for Point 3 (note 12052). Anyone can help in there as well. :)
So far, "luckily" centosplus kernels are "ahead of" the distrokernel in that they have been built and are available for testing (see note 12502).
This post has led me to lots of information about the CentOS build process and makes me offer the following comment:-/
PLEASE ALL - have a look around the wiki and bugs - there is heaps of information about the status of the various build processes and even how to do it yourself - at least from a getting started level
- I'm sure once one gets into it there would be some questions, but
just like here
- if one shows what has been tried, and the specific problem
encountered, and what attempts have been made to resolve the problem - then help would be available to assist you in the forward direction.
Rather than making a nuisance and noise on the lists and expecting digested sound bites to appease your thirst for information from the folk that do the work - go have a look.
It is readily apparent that the build process is very reliant upon having "all one's ducks in a row" and one minor version change in a dependent source file means the output will not be the binary match with the upstream provider that CentOS delivers. Thus the process gives new meaning to the word "iterative".
My thanks to all those doing the painstaking work of making it work right the first time - I for one, am not detail oriented enough to do this kind of work, and so I suspect are many of those on this list. Please do not get discouraged by those who lash out on the various forum but accept this heart felt THANK YOU from a long time user that appreciates all that you do.
I see comments about not being able to rely upon CentOS for business use
- I beg to differ, I use CentOS for my business and am very
satisfied with the quality of the product. There are certainly some business uses where the time-frame of the CentOS build process is a problem - if that is the case then there are alternatives - they do cost money. Pay your money and make your choice - no money.......accept what is CentOS and see if there is somewhere you can contribute to a very informative and helpful infrastructure - preferably in a polite and positive manner. Thanks for reading.
+1000 _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
+1001
On 04/07/2011 12:19 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
Changing the subject line for good ...
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Lamar Owenlowen@pari.edu wrote:
On Thursday, April 07, 2011 11:23:51 AM Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. Starting 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a patch, or backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more nightmarish than before.
This one doesn't impact the CentOS core rebuild. It would/could impact CentOSPlus.
Yes, it _could_ affect the centosplus kernel. This point was addressed early on when RHEL-6 was released back in Nov 2010. See:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586
Point 2 (note 12051) is the one that is relevant. I welcome any feedback / suggestions for the proposed method I outlined there. While you are there, look also at the issues described for Point 3 (note 12052). Anyone can help in there as well. :)
So far, "luckily" centosplus kernels are "ahead of" the distro kernel in that they have been built and are available for testing (see note 12502).
Hi Akemi,
Two questions: 1) Is there a step by step documentation on rebuilding the centosplus kernels that includes what the environment should be.
2) Is it possible to get upstream patches from newer kernels included or must on do it themselves.
I am specifically interested in the following 2 patches that let linux behave according to Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-09
The current kernel-2.6.32-71.18.2.el6 does not have these patches - which prevents using it as a customer edge router for ipv6.
From: Thomas Graf Subject: [PATCH] ipv6: add special mode accept_ra=2 to accept RA while configured as router Date: Friday, September 3, 2010 - 5:59 am
The current IPv6 behavior is to not accept router advertisements while forwarding, i.e. configured as router.
This does make sense, a router is typically not supposed to be auto configured. However there are exceptions and we should allow the current behavior to be overwritten.
Therefore this patch enables the user to overrule the "if forwarding enabled then don't listen to RAs" rule by setting accept_ra to the special value of 2.
An alternative would be to ignore the forwarding switch alltogether and solely accept RAs based on the value of accept_ra. However, I found that if not intended, accepting RAs as a router can lead to strange unwanted behavior therefore we it seems wise to only do so if the user explicitely asks for this behavior.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Graf tgraf@infradead.org
Index: net-2.6/net/ipv6/ndisc.c =================================================================== --- net-2.6.orig/net/ipv6/ndisc.c +++ net-2.6/net/ipv6/ndisc.c @@ -1105,6 +1105,18 @@ errout: rtnl_set_sk_err(net, RTNLGRP_ND_USEROPT, err); }
+static inline int accept_ra(struct inet6_dev *in6_dev) +{ + /* + * If forwarding is enabled, RA are not accepted unless the special + * hybrid mode (accept_ra=2) is enabled. + */ + if (in6_dev->cnf.forwarding && in6_dev->cnf.accept_ra < 2) + return 0; + + return in6_dev->cnf.accept_ra; +} + static void ndisc_router_discovery(struct sk_buff *skb) { struct ra_msg *ra_msg = (struct ra_msg *)skb_transport_header(skb); @@ -1158,8 +1170,7 @@ static void ndisc_router_discovery(struc return; }
- /* skip route and link configuration on routers */ - if (in6_dev->cnf.forwarding || !in6_dev->cnf.accept_ra) + if (!accept_ra(in6_dev)) goto skip_linkparms;
#ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_NDISC_NODETYPE @@ -1309,8 +1320,7 @@ skip_linkparms: NEIGH_UPDATE_F_ISROUTER); }
- /* skip route and link configuration on routers */ - if (in6_dev->cnf.forwarding || !in6_dev->cnf.accept_ra) + if (!accept_ra(in6_dev)) goto out;
#ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTE_INFO
Similar to accepting router advertisement, the IPv6 stack does not send router solicitations if forwarding is enabled.
This patch enables this behavior to be overruled by setting forwarding to the special value 2.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Graf tgraf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Index: net-2.6/net/ipv6/addrconf.c =================================================================== --- net-2.6.orig/net/ipv6/addrconf.c +++ net-2.6/net/ipv6/addrconf.c @@ -2964,7 +2964,8 @@ static void addrconf_dad_completed(struc start sending router solicitations. */
- if (ifp->idev->cnf.forwarding == 0 && + if ((ifp->idev->cnf.forwarding == 0 || + ifp->idev->cnf.forwarding == 2) && ifp->idev->cnf.rtr_solicits > 0 && (dev->flags&IFF_LOOPBACK) == 0 && (ipv6_addr_type(&ifp->addr) & IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL)) {
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Steve Clark sclark@netwolves.com wrote:
On 04/07/2011 12:19 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586
Point 2 (note 12051) is the one that is relevant. I welcome any feedback / suggestions for the proposed method I outlined there. While you are there, look also at the issues described for Point 3 (note 12052). Anyone can help in there as well. :)
Hi Akemi,
Two questions:
- Is there a step by step documentation on rebuilding the centosplus
kernels that includes what the environment should be.
I built all the binaries on RHEL6beta2refresh. Other than that, I hope that the info on how to build cplus 6 kernel is in that bug tracker entry.
- Is it possible to get upstream patches from newer kernels included or
must on do it themselves.
I am specifically interested in the following 2 patches that let linux behave according to Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-09
The current kernel-2.6.32-71.18.2.el6 does not have these patches - which prevents using it as a customer edge router for ipv6.
I had a quick look at the patches. The first one seems to be applicable without any modifications. The second one will need an adjustment.
Could you file a request at bugs.centos.org ? I can try and build a test cplus kernel with those patches applied. Are you then able to test it to see if the patched version works as expected?
Akemi
On 04/07/2011 01:18 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Steve Clarksclark@netwolves.com wrote:
On 04/07/2011 12:19 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=4586
Point 2 (note 12051) is the one that is relevant. I welcome any feedback / suggestions for the proposed method I outlined there. While you are there, look also at the issues described for Point 3 (note 12052). Anyone can help in there as well. :) Hi Akemi,
Two questions:
- Is there a step by step documentation on rebuilding the centosplus
kernels that includes what the environment should be.
I built all the binaries on RHEL6beta2refresh. Other than that, I hope that the info on how to build cplus 6 kernel is in that bug tracker entry.
- Is it possible to get upstream patches from newer kernels included or
must on do it themselves.
I am specifically interested in the following 2 patches that let linux behave according to Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-09
The current kernel-2.6.32-71.18.2.el6 does not have these patches - which prevents using it as a customer edge router for ipv6.
I had a quick look at the patches. The first one seems to be applicable without any modifications. The second one will need an adjustment.
Could you file a request at bugs.centos.org ? I can try and build a test cplus kernel with those patches applied. Are you then able to test it to see if the patched version works as expected?
Akemi
I just finished building a kernel based on kernel-2.6.32-71.18.2.el6.src.rpm. I hand applied the patches. Like you said one applied clean the other applied with a fuzz offset of -36 (IIRC). I am installing now to test.
My rebuild was simply cp the /boot/config-2.6.32-71.18.2.el6.i686 to .config;make oldconfig;make rpm
That is why I was asking about the proper way.
I have just installed the kernel and will now start testing.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Steve Clark sclark@netwolves.com wrote:
On 04/07/2011 01:18 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
I had a quick look at the patches. The first one seems to be applicable without any modifications. The second one will need an adjustment.
Akemi
I just finished building a kernel based on kernel-2.6.32-71.18.2.el6.src.rpm. I hand applied the patches. Like you said one applied clean the other applied with a fuzz offset of -36 (IIRC). I am installing now to test.
My rebuild was simply cp the /boot/config-2.6.32-71.18.2.el6.i686 to .config;make oldconfig;make rpm
That is why I was asking about the proper way.
I have just installed the kernel and will now start testing.
Great. Please keep us posted. If the patches work as expected, they will be a worthy addition to the cplus kernel.
Akemi
On 04/07/2011 05:14 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Steve Clarksclark@netwolves.com wrote:
On 04/07/2011 01:18 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote: I had a quick look at the patches. The first one seems to be applicable without any modifications. The second one will need an adjustment. Akemi
I just finished building a kernel based on kernel-2.6.32-71.18.2.el6.src.rpm. I hand applied the patches. Like you said one applied clean the other applied with a fuzz offset of -36 (IIRC). I am installing now to test.
My rebuild was simply cp the /boot/config-2.6.32-71.18.2.el6.i686 to .config;make oldconfig;make rpm
That is why I was asking about the proper way.
I have just installed the kernel and will now start testing.
Great. Please keep us posted. If the patches work as expected, they will be a worthy addition to the cplus kernel.
I got a kernel built with the patches using the wiki and your notes in 0004586 (thanks). I am pleased to report that they appear to work as advertised. With: net.ipv6.conf.default.forwarding = 2 net.ipv6.conf.all.accept_ra = 2
Router solicitations were issued and router advertisements were accepted and I could still forward packets.
I didn't make new patches, I simply did %define with_fuzzy_patches 1
Also what should the normal rpmbuild line be? I ended up doing rpmbuild -bb --target=`uname -m` kernel.spec --with firmware --without debug --without debuginfo
The first time I didn't have --with firmware and the kernel wouldn't install.
Regards,
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Steve Clark sclark@netwolves.com wrote:
On 04/07/2011 05:14 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
I have just installed the kernel and will now start testing.
Great. Please keep us posted. If the patches work as expected, they will be a worthy addition to the cplus kernel.
I got a kernel built with the patches using the wiki and your notes in 0004586 (thanks). I am pleased to report that they appear to work as advertised. With: net.ipv6.conf.default.forwarding = 2 net.ipv6.conf.all.accept_ra = 2
Router solicitations were issued and router advertisements were accepted and I could still forward packets.
Glad to hear things worked. Now that a new c6 kernel update is out, I will try and see if I could include the patches to this version ( 2.6.32-71.24.1 ).
I didn't make new patches, I simply did %define with_fuzzy_patches 1
Never used it. Is it "safe" to do that?
Also what should the normal rpmbuild line be? I ended up doing rpmbuild -bb --target=`uname -m` kernel.spec --with firmware --without debug --without debuginfo
The first time I didn't have --with firmware and the kernel wouldn't install.
Yes, C6 kernels require kernel-firmware. I build it with --target noarch.
Akemi
On 04/08/2011 11:35 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Steve Clarksclark@netwolves.com wrote:
On 04/07/2011 05:14 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote: I have just installed the kernel and will now start testing.
Great. Please keep us posted. If the patches work as expected, they will be a worthy addition to the cplus kernel. I got a kernel built with the patches using the wiki and your notes in 0004586 (thanks). I am pleased to report that they appear to work as advertised. With: net.ipv6.conf.default.forwarding = 2 net.ipv6.conf.all.accept_ra = 2
Router solicitations were issued and router advertisements were accepted and I could still forward packets.
Glad to hear things worked. Now that a new c6 kernel update is out, I will try and see if I could include the patches to this version ( 2.6.32-71.24.1 ).
I didn't make new patches, I simply did %define with_fuzzy_patches 1
Never used it. Is it "safe" to do that?
As a general rule probably not. I did examine the result of the patched files and verified they looked OK. I guess I could cp'ed the files that were affected, then applied the patch by hand then ran gendiff against the new and the old to get a new patch, but in the end it is the same thing, other than having to turn on with_fuzzy_patches.
Also what should the normal rpmbuild line be? I ended up doing rpmbuild -bb --target=`uname -m` kernel.spec --with firmware --without debug --without debuginfo
The first time I didn't have --with firmware and the kernel wouldn't install.
Yes, C6 kernels require kernel-firmware. I build it with --target noarch.
Good to know.
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Steve Clark sclark@netwolves.com wrote:
On 04/07/2011 05:14 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
Great. Please keep us posted. If the patches work as expected, they will be a worthy addition to the cplus kernel.
I got a kernel built with the patches using the wiki and your notes in 0004586 (thanks). I am pleased to report that they appear to work as advertised. With: net.ipv6.conf.default.forwarding = 2 net.ipv6.conf.all.accept_ra = 2
Router solicitations were issued and router advertisements were accepted and I could still forward packets.
I didn't make new patches, I simply did %define with_fuzzy_patches 1
I have built the latest version of cplus kernel with the patches applied. The proposed process for patch addition did work well. It is available as 'kernel-devel-2.6.32-71.24.1.el6.centos.ayplus.1' from:
http://centos.toracat.org/kernel/centos6/centosplus-testing/
Steve, could you please test this kernel? Looks like this is going to be the first patch set added to the C6plus kernel.
Akemi
On 04/10/2011 05:00 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Steve Clarksclark@netwolves.com wrote:
On 04/07/2011 05:14 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote: Great. Please keep us posted. If the patches work as expected, they will be a worthy addition to the cplus kernel. I got a kernel built with the patches using the wiki and your notes in 0004586 (thanks). I am pleased to report that they appear to work as advertised. With: net.ipv6.conf.default.forwarding = 2 net.ipv6.conf.all.accept_ra = 2
Router solicitations were issued and router advertisements were accepted and I could still forward packets.
I didn't make new patches, I simply did %define with_fuzzy_patches 1
I have built the latest version of cplus kernel with the patches applied. The proposed process for patch addition did work well. It is available as 'kernel-devel-2.6.32-71.24.1.el6.centos.ayplus.1' from:
http://centos.toracat.org/kernel/centos6/centosplus-testing/
Steve, could you please test this kernel? Looks like this is going to be the first patch set added to the C6plus kernel.
Sure - I am downloading it now.
On 04/11/2011 07:25 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 04/10/2011 05:00 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 7:16 AM, Steve Clarksclark@netwolves.com wrote:
On 04/07/2011 05:14 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote: Great. Please keep us posted. If the patches work as expected, they will be a worthy addition to the cplus kernel. I got a kernel built with the patches using the wiki and your notes in 0004586 (thanks). I am pleased to report that they appear to work as advertised. With: net.ipv6.conf.default.forwarding = 2 net.ipv6.conf.all.accept_ra = 2
Router solicitations were issued and router advertisements were accepted and I could still forward packets.
I didn't make new patches, I simply did %define with_fuzzy_patches 1
I have built the latest version of cplus kernel with the patches applied. The proposed process for patch addition did work well. It is available as 'kernel-devel-2.6.32-71.24.1.el6.centos.ayplus.1' from:
http://centos.toracat.org/kernel/centos6/centosplus-testing/
Steve, could you please test this kernel? Looks like this is going to be the first patch set added to the C6plus kernel.
Sure - I am downloading it now.
Oops - I am using i386 not x86_64 and it appears you only have re-compiled the x86_64 kernels. At least that is what I am assuming looking at the dates and the fact the i386 kernel did not work in regards to the new behavior with router solicitations and router advertisements.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Steve Clark sclark@netwolves.com wrote:
On 04/11/2011 07:25 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 04/10/2011 05:00 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
I got a kernel built with the patches using the wiki and your notes in 0004586 (thanks). I am pleased to report that they appear to work as advertised. With: net.ipv6.conf.default.forwarding = 2 net.ipv6.conf.all.accept_ra = 2
Router solicitations were issued and router advertisements were accepted and I could still forward packets.
I have built the latest version of cplus kernel with the patches applied. The proposed process for patch addition did work well. It is available as 'kernel-devel-2.6.32-71.24.1.el6.centos.ayplus.1' from:
http://centos.toracat.org/kernel/centos6/centosplus-testing/
Steve, could you please test this kernel? Looks like this is going to be the first patch set added to the C6plus kernel.
Sure - I am downloading it now.
Oops - I am using i386 not x86_64 and it appears you only have re-compiled the x86_64 kernels. At least that is what I am assuming looking at the dates and the fact the i386 kernel did not work in regards to the new behavior with router solicitations and router advertisements.
Thank you for the testing.
Odd. I did build both arches. x86_64 was re-rebuilt after the i386 version, which is why it has a newer date.
I will go back to the drawing board and make sure the patches are in place.
If I may ask one more thing ... I think we should continue the current effort in the bug tracker rather than here on this list. Would you mind filing a new request at http://bugs.centos.org under the CentOS-6-Plus category ?
Akemi
On 04/11/2011 01:08 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Steve Clarksclark@netwolves.com wrote:
On 04/11/2011 07:25 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 04/10/2011 05:00 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote: I got a kernel built with the patches using the wiki and your notes in 0004586 (thanks). I am pleased to report that they appear to work as advertised. With: net.ipv6.conf.default.forwarding = 2 net.ipv6.conf.all.accept_ra = 2
Router solicitations were issued and router advertisements were accepted and I could still forward packets. I have built the latest version of cplus kernel with the patches applied. The proposed process for patch addition did work well. It is available as 'kernel-devel-2.6.32-71.24.1.el6.centos.ayplus.1' from:
http://centos.toracat.org/kernel/centos6/centosplus-testing/
Steve, could you please test this kernel? Looks like this is going to be the first patch set added to the C6plus kernel.
Sure - I am downloading it now. Oops - I am using i386 not x86_64 and it appears you only have re-compiled the x86_64 kernels. At least that is what I am assuming looking at the dates and the fact the i386 kernel did not work in regards to the new behavior with router solicitations and router advertisements.
Thank you for the testing.
Odd. I did build both arches. x86_64 was re-rebuilt after the i386 version, which is why it has a newer date.
I will go back to the drawing board and make sure the patches are in place.
If I may ask one more thing ... I think we should continue the current effort in the bug tracker rather than here on this list. Would you mind filing a new request at http://bugs.centos.org under the CentOS-6-Plus category ?
Hmm... without looking at the dates of the files I had downloaded the
kernel-2.6.32-71.18.2.el6.centos.ayplus.i686.rpm http://centos.toracat.org/kernel/centos6/centosplus-testing/i386/kernel-2.6.32-71.18.2.el6.centos.ayplus.i686.rpm 09-Mar-2011 11:36
files let me try the
kernel-2.6.32-71.24.1.el6.centos.ayplus.1.i686.rpm http://centos.toracat.org/kernel/centos6/centosplus-testing/i386/kernel-2.6.32-71.24.1.el6.centos.ayplus.1.i686.rpm 08-Apr-2011 19:06 21M
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Steve Clark sclark@netwolves.com wrote:
Hmm... without looking at the dates of the files I had downloaded the
kernel-2.6.32-71.18.2.el6.centos.ayplus.i686.rpm 09-Mar-2011 11:36
files let me try the
kernel-2.6.32-71.24.1.el6.centos.ayplus.1.i686.rpm 08-Apr-2011 19:06 21M
Yes, that ( 2.6.32-71.24.1.el6.centos.ayplus.1 ) is the right one. :)
Akemi
On 04/11/2011 01:19 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Steve Clarksclark@netwolves.com wrote:
Hmm... without looking at the dates of the files I had downloaded the
kernel-2.6.32-71.18.2.el6.centos.ayplus.i686.rpm 09-Mar-2011 11:36
files let me try the
kernel-2.6.32-71.24.1.el6.centos.ayplus.1.i686.rpm 08-Apr-2011 19:06 21M
Yes, that ( 2.6.32-71.24.1.el6.centos.ayplus.1 ) is the right one. :)
Akemi
HOORAY - it works.
I got an ipv6 address: $ ip6 a s eth2 4: eth2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qlen 1000 inet6 2001:db8:1:0:202:b6ff:fe36:e91a/64 scope global dynamic valid_lft 86361sec preferred_lft 14361sec inet6 fe80::202:b6ff:fe36:e91a/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
and a default route: default via fe80::219:fff:fe06:9882 dev eth2 proto kernel metric 1024 expires 0sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 64
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Steve Clark sclark@netwolves.com wrote:
On 04/11/2011 01:19 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
Yes, that ( 2.6.32-71.24.1.el6.centos.ayplus.1 ) is the right one. :)
Akemi
HOORAY - it works.
I got an ipv6 address: $ ip6 a s eth2 4: eth2: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qlen 1000 inet6 2001:db8:1:0:202:b6ff:fe36:e91a/64 scope global dynamic valid_lft 86361sec preferred_lft 14361sec inet6 fe80::202:b6ff:fe36:e91a/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
and a default route: default via fe80::219:fff:fe06:9882 dev eth2 proto kernel metric 1024 expires 0sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 64
Excellent news !
By the way, has this been accepted in the mainline kernel?
Akemi
On 04/11/2011 01:51 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Steve Clarksclark@netwolves.com wrote:
On 04/11/2011 01:19 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote: Yes, that ( 2.6.32-71.24.1.el6.centos.ayplus.1 ) is the right one. :)
Akemi
HOORAY - it works.
I got an ipv6 address: $ ip6 a s eth2 4: eth2:<BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qlen 1000 inet6 2001:db8:1:0:202:b6ff:fe36:e91a/64 scope global dynamic valid_lft 86361sec preferred_lft 14361sec inet6 fe80::202:b6ff:fe36:e91a/64 scope link valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
and a default route: default via fe80::219:fff:fe06:9882 dev eth2 proto kernel metric 1024 expires 0sec mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 64
Excellent news !
By the way, has this been accepted in the mainline kernel?
The patches are in 2.6.38.2 just downloaded from kernel.org.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Steve Clark sclark@netwolves.com wrote:
On 04/11/2011 01:51 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
By the way, has this been accepted in the mainline kernel?
The patches are in 2.6.38.2 just downloaded from kernel.org.
Indeed. Just found it here:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.37.y.git;a=commit...
Akemi
-
Akemi Yagi -
Ljubomir Ljubojevic -
Rob Kampen -
samuel machua -
Steve Clark -
Tom Bishop