similar to: [SECURITY] Netfilter Security Advisory: Conntrack list_del() DoS

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=950 Summary: ct status Product: nftables Version: unspecified Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: nft AssignedTo: pablo at netfilter.org ReportedBy: anarey at gmail.com Estimated Hours:

--AkbCVLjbJ9qUtAXD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all! On behalf of the netfilter core team I have the following announcement: The following kernel versions habe a bug in include/linux/list.h, which causes netfilter's connection tracking code to misbehave: 2.4.10-pre10 2.4.10-pre11 2.4.10-pre12 2.4.10

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56 Summary: super-long erroneous timeouts in conntrack table (semantics of list_del() change) Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.4.x Platform: other URL: http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter-

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=466 netfilter@linuxace.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |netfilter@linuxace.com Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi! I have released Version 1.01 of the iptables userspace logging daemon (ulogd).=20 The new Version is available as tar.bz2 only and can be retrieved from: ftp://ftp.netfilter.org/pub/ulogd/ulogd-1.01.tar.bz2 There is a GPG signature for verification of the

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=831 Summary: oops in find_appropriate_src+219 Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.6.x Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: SuSE Linux Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P5 Component: NAT AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org

http://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=714 Summary: Kernel panics in same_src() Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.6.x Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: NAT AssignedTo: netfilter-buglog at lists.netfilter.org ReportedBy:

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=512 ------- Additional Comments From yi_he@pmc-sierra.com 2006-10-23 09:09 MET ------- I've met the problem in the 2.4 kernel as well, and I modified the source linux/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_nat_pptp.c like this: in function pptp_outbound_pkt(): ...... switch (msg = ntohs(ctlh->messageType)) { case

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=495 Summary: Netfilter Connection Tracking Race Condition in Kernel 2.4.x Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.4.x Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: ip_conntrack

> > Gentle reminder ! Please let me know if there are any pointers for this As far as I can see your original message never made it on to the mailing list ... > > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 7:26 PM santhosh kumar <santhosh.santuu at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > We migrated from redhat 5.3 to centos 7.5 and facing crashes in longevity > >

On Fri, 17 May 2019, Pete Biggs wrote: > CentOS is a clone of RHEL - if it is fixed in RHEL 7 it will be fixed > in CentOS 7. CentOS doesn't "fix" things as such as that would break > compatibility with RHEL. > > There may be some 3rd party repo that provides a newer kernel that > fixes the issue. I'd go further. It's also a kernel bug in btrfs, which

On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 3:17 AM John Hodrien <J.H.Hodrien at leeds.ac.uk> wrote: > RHEL advice would clearly be not to use btrfs. I'm curious, is there anything in RHEL 8 that would replace BTRFS or ZFS? I'm experimenting with BTRFS on one system and the snapshot and subvolume features are nice. Jim

On May 17, 2019, at 9:53 AM, John Hodrien <J.H.Hodrien at leeds.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Fri, 17 May 2019, James Szinger wrote: > >> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 3:17 AM John Hodrien <J.H.Hodrien at leeds.ac.uk> wrote: >>> RHEL advice would clearly be not to use btrfs. >> >> I'm curious, is there anything in RHEL 8 that would replace BTRFS or >>

Warren Young wrote: > On May 17, 2019, at 9:53 AM, John Hodrien <J.H.Hodrien at leeds.ac.uk> > wrote: >> On Fri, 17 May 2019, James Szinger wrote: >>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 3:17 AM John Hodrien >>> <J.H.Hodrien at leeds.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> RHEL advice would clearly be not to use btrfs. >>> >>> I'm curious, is

> Am 17.05.2019 um 19:26 schrieb mark <m.roth at 5-cent.us>: > > Warren Young wrote: >> On May 17, 2019, at 9:53 AM, John Hodrien <J.H.Hodrien at leeds.ac.uk> >> wrote: >>> On Fri, 17 May 2019, James Szinger wrote: >>>> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 3:17 AM John Hodrien >>>> <J.H.Hodrien at leeds.ac.uk> wrote: >>>>

> A customer of ours is having randomly some kernel panics. Via some forum > posts I might have seen it could have something to do with Samba: > > They're running: RHEL 5.1 : Linux krulep03.verhaert.com 2.6.18-8.el5 #1 > SMP Fri Jan 26 14:15:21 EST 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux > > rpm -qa | grep samba > samba-client-3.0.23c-2 > samba-3.0.23c-2 >

Hi, Gentle reminder ! Please let me know if there are any pointers for this Thanks Santhosh On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 7:26 PM santhosh kumar <santhosh.santuu at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > We migrated from redhat 5.3 to centos 7.5 and facing crashes in longevity > tests > > All of them point to below reason, > > list_del corruption. next->prev should be

On Fri, 17 May 2019, James Szinger wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 3:17 AM John Hodrien <J.H.Hodrien at leeds.ac.uk> wrote: >> RHEL advice would clearly be not to use btrfs. > > I'm curious, is there anything in RHEL 8 that would replace BTRFS or > ZFS? I'm experimenting with BTRFS on one system and the snapshot and > subvolume features are nice. I assume

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84880 Bug ID: 84880 Summary: [NV94] X freeze on nouveau list_del corruption / unable to handle kernel paging request Product: xorg Version: unspecified Hardware: x86-64 (AMD64) OS: Linux (All) Status: NEW Severity: critical

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71 ------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org 2003-03-30 21:18 ------- First of all: You didn't even specify the particular kernel version you are running, not even mentioning which versions of which patches you are using (if any). Secondly, I don't see anything strange in this setup. DNAT with FTP sessions