From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Salim" <salim.si@askey.com.tw>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 02:14:52 +0000
Subject: Re: [LARTC] MARK: targinfosize 8 != 4
Message-Id: <001f01c60054$3cdd3260$455f030a@askeyrd3>
List-Id: <lartc.vger.kernel.org>
References: <00fe01c5ffb5$f0a7cf20$455f030a@askeyrd3>
In-Reply-To: <00fe01c5ffb5$f0a7cf20$455f030a@askeyrd3>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: lartc@vger.kernel.org

It worked when I changed to NO_SHARED_LIBS=0.
thanks guys.
will try out the patch today.

the command that was failing was a simple --set-mark. Let me know if anyone
still wants an strace. Will send it.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick McHardy" <kaber@trash.net>
To: "DervishD" <lartc@dervishd.net>
Cc: "Salim" <salim.si@askey.com.tw>; <lartc@mailman.ds9a.nl>; "Netfilter
Development Mailinglist" <netfilter-devel@lists.netfilter.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: [LARTC] MARK: targinfosize 8 != 4


> DervishD wrote:
> >     Hi Salim :)
> >
> >  * Salim <salim.si@askey.com.tw> dixit:
> >
> >>   I got this problem while trying to shape traffic with iptables MARK
and
> >>HTB.
> >>
> >>MARK: targinfosize 8 != 4
> >>
> >>--set-mark gives "invalid argument" error message.
> >>
> >>Kernel version is 2.4.29 (some patches from patch o matic applied)
> >>Iptables version 1.3.4
> >>
> >>Intel x86 architecture.
> >>
> >>I saw this problem discussed in a few places, but the discussions didn't
> >>come to a conclusion or solution.
> >
> >
> >     You've hit a bug in iptables :( I've notified in the bugzilla but
> > I have had no answers. You're building iptables with no shared
> > libraries (NO_SHARED_LIBS=1). This means that the code in iptables,
> > when loading the "modules" for the matches and targets is taking a
> > slightly different code path. The problem is that the MARK target
> > has two versions, 0 and 1, and kernel 2.4.x (at least until 31)
> > supports only version 0. If you don't use share libraries in
> > iptables, both versions are loaded and v1 is used instead of v2.
> > Unfortunately, v1 has a bigger data structure than v0 and your kernel
> > complaints.
>
> That can't be the reason, all revisions of a single match/target are
> in the same object file and the supported revision is (supposed to be)
> probed. Salim, can you send a strace of the failing iptables command?

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list
LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc