Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream

Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream

[Silvan Nagl]

Hi,

i noticed that no Wireguard installation source currently supports
CentOS Stream and its newer Kernels.
Will there be support for it?

Greetings,

Silvan

Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream

[Silvan Nagl]

My temporary solution is now to use kernel-ml.

On 1/3/21 9:17 PM, Silvan Nagl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i noticed that no Wireguard installation source currently supports
> CentOS Stream and its newer Kernels.
> Will there be support for it?
>
> Greetings,
>
> Silvan
>

Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream

[Joe Doss]

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jdoss/wireguard/

The official DKMS install method for CentOS has a Stream repo enabled. It 
should work fine. Let us know if you have any issues.

Joe

On January 3, 2021 2:19:30 PM Silvan Nagl <mail@53c70r.de> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> i noticed that no Wireguard installation source currently supports
> CentOS Stream and its newer Kernels.
> Will there be support for it?
>
> Greetings,
>
> Silvan

Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 2:24 AM Joe Doss <joe@solidadmin.com> wrote:
>
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jdoss/wireguard/
>
> The official DKMS install method for CentOS has a Stream repo enabled. It
> should work fine. Let us know if you have any issues.

It's actually presently broken. I've fixed it in the master branch with:
https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-linux-compat/commit/?id=f7f55464a156e1181fa76d9c7e2fc0d495f2357e

But Red Hat still has not fixed other bugs that will enable our CI to
continue, and I won't release for RHEL alone until the CI is green.
You can cherry pick that into your dkms package if you need. I wrote
Red Hat a patch and sent it, but there's been no updated kernel yet.

More generally, I'm on the fence about how much I actually want to
support CentOS Stream. CentOS non-Stream is annoying, because it's
developed behind closed doors and is extremely slow to fix things, but
at least the changes are gradual and it's easy to keep up with, by
virtue of rarely changing. In contrast, CentOS Stream is fast moving,
and extremely unstable, with builds frequently breaking. This would be
fine and I would prefer it, since it means we can in theory get things
fixed reasonably fast, but actually, Stream is still developed behind
closed doors, with no visibility about what's going on, no
communication from RH on when fixes are coming out, no regular or
reliable release schedule, no releases for months sometimes, and just
a bugzilla blackbox that forces all reports to be private/secret. So,
unstable+secretive development makes developing for CentOS Stream
nearly as fun as developing for macOS, which is to say, not very fun.

Anyway, as soon as they drop a new kernel and the CI is green again,
I'll release. Or they ignored my patch and the CI will still be red.
We'll see!

Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream

[Joe Doss]

On 1/4/21 1:20 PM, Jack Craig wrote:
> how is fedora looking? is it stable enough for a small home network?

It's in the Fedora kernel and I use it daily. It works great and it is
very stable.

Joe



-- 
Joe Doss
joe@solidadmin.com

Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 13:42:22 -0600,
  Joe Doss <joe@solidadmin.com> wrote:
>On 1/4/21 1:20 PM, Jack Craig wrote:
>> how is fedora looking? is it stable enough for a small home network?
>
>It's in the Fedora kernel and I use it daily. It works great and it is
>very stable.

Wireguard works fine in Fedora. I have two laptops that route everything 
but dhcp to my home router (no matter what network they are on) via 
a wireguard tunnel. My home router provides them with endpoints that have 
static IP addresses. I also use it for my work desktop so that I can reach it 
from home even though it is behind NAT.

Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 7:48 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 2:24 AM Joe Doss <joe@solidadmin.com> wrote:
> >
> > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jdoss/wireguard/
> >
> > The official DKMS install method for CentOS has a Stream repo enabled. It
> > should work fine. Let us know if you have any issues.
>
> It's actually presently broken. I've fixed it in the master branch with:
> https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-linux-compat/commit/?id=f7f55464a156e1181fa76d9c7e2fc0d495f2357e
>
> But Red Hat still has not fixed other bugs that will enable our CI to
> continue, and I won't release for RHEL alone until the CI is green.
> You can cherry pick that into your dkms package if you need. I wrote
> Red Hat a patch and sent it, but there's been no updated kernel yet.
>
> More generally, I'm on the fence about how much I actually want to
> support CentOS Stream. CentOS non-Stream is annoying, because it's
> developed behind closed doors and is extremely slow to fix things, but
> at least the changes are gradual and it's easy to keep up with, by
> virtue of rarely changing. In contrast, CentOS Stream is fast moving,
> and extremely unstable, with builds frequently breaking. This would be
> fine and I would prefer it, since it means we can in theory get things
> fixed reasonably fast, but actually, Stream is still developed behind
> closed doors, with no visibility about what's going on, no
> communication from RH on when fixes are coming out, no regular or
> reliable release schedule, no releases for months sometimes, and just
> a bugzilla blackbox that forces all reports to be private/secret. So,
> unstable+secretive development makes developing for CentOS Stream
> nearly as fun as developing for macOS, which is to say, not very fun.

From an admin and developer perspective I find Fedora Server a real
gem. Speaking from experience, I would much rather work on Fedora than
CentOS or Red Hat.  Fedora Server comes with the latest stable tools
and does not need things like Software Collections (SCL) to get a
modern Apache, Python or PHP.

Every year or so Fedora Server needs a DNF System Upgrade
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/dnf-system-upgrade/),
which is like a Ubuntu dist-upgrade. I've not had one go bad since I
started using it back around F12 or F15.

If Wireguard needs to make a Red Hat-family recommendation, I think it
would be wise to consider Fedora Server.

Jeff

RE: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream

[Jonathan Aquilina]

Hi,

Is Fedora a rolling release so to speak? I remember they used to call fedora the bleeding edge distro not really geared for production environments is that still accurate. I have only used it as a work station desktop with KDE installed.

Regards,
Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: WireGuard <wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Walton
Sent: 04 January 2021 22:55
To: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Cc: WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>
Subject: Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 7:48 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 2:24 AM Joe Doss <joe@solidadmin.com> wrote:
> >
> > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jdoss/wireguard/
> >
> > The official DKMS install method for CentOS has a Stream repo 
> > enabled. It should work fine. Let us know if you have any issues.
>
> It's actually presently broken. I've fixed it in the master branch with:
> https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-linux-compat/commit/?id=f7f55464a156e1
> 181fa76d9c7e2fc0d495f2357e
>
> But Red Hat still has not fixed other bugs that will enable our CI to 
> continue, and I won't release for RHEL alone until the CI is green.
> You can cherry pick that into your dkms package if you need. I wrote 
> Red Hat a patch and sent it, but there's been no updated kernel yet.
>
> More generally, I'm on the fence about how much I actually want to 
> support CentOS Stream. CentOS non-Stream is annoying, because it's 
> developed behind closed doors and is extremely slow to fix things, but 
> at least the changes are gradual and it's easy to keep up with, by 
> virtue of rarely changing. In contrast, CentOS Stream is fast moving, 
> and extremely unstable, with builds frequently breaking. This would be 
> fine and I would prefer it, since it means we can in theory get things 
> fixed reasonably fast, but actually, Stream is still developed behind 
> closed doors, with no visibility about what's going on, no 
> communication from RH on when fixes are coming out, no regular or 
> reliable release schedule, no releases for months sometimes, and just 
> a bugzilla blackbox that forces all reports to be private/secret. So,
> unstable+secretive development makes developing for CentOS Stream
> nearly as fun as developing for macOS, which is to say, not very fun.

From an admin and developer perspective I find Fedora Server a real gem. Speaking from experience, I would much rather work on Fedora than CentOS or Red Hat.  Fedora Server comes with the latest stable tools and does not need things like Software Collections (SCL) to get a modern Apache, Python or PHP.

Every year or so Fedora Server needs a DNF System Upgrade (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/dnf-system-upgrade/),
which is like a Ubuntu dist-upgrade. I've not had one go bad since I started using it back around F12 or F15.

If Wireguard needs to make a Red Hat-family recommendation, I think it would be wise to consider Fedora Server.

Jeff

Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream

[Silvan Nagl]

Thank you for this information.
Since Stream is more or less like a very old Fedora version now I am
convinced using Fedora Server wont be that bad at all.

Gonna test it soon.

On 1/4/21 10:55 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 7:48 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 2:24 AM Joe Doss <joe@solidadmin.com> wrote:
>>> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jdoss/wireguard/
>>>
>>> The official DKMS install method for CentOS has a Stream repo enabled. It
>>> should work fine. Let us know if you have any issues.
>> It's actually presently broken. I've fixed it in the master branch with:
>> https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-linux-compat/commit/?id=f7f55464a156e1181fa76d9c7e2fc0d495f2357e
>>
>> But Red Hat still has not fixed other bugs that will enable our CI to
>> continue, and I won't release for RHEL alone until the CI is green.
>> You can cherry pick that into your dkms package if you need. I wrote
>> Red Hat a patch and sent it, but there's been no updated kernel yet.
>>
>> More generally, I'm on the fence about how much I actually want to
>> support CentOS Stream. CentOS non-Stream is annoying, because it's
>> developed behind closed doors and is extremely slow to fix things, but
>> at least the changes are gradual and it's easy to keep up with, by
>> virtue of rarely changing. In contrast, CentOS Stream is fast moving,
>> and extremely unstable, with builds frequently breaking. This would be
>> fine and I would prefer it, since it means we can in theory get things
>> fixed reasonably fast, but actually, Stream is still developed behind
>> closed doors, with no visibility about what's going on, no
>> communication from RH on when fixes are coming out, no regular or
>> reliable release schedule, no releases for months sometimes, and just
>> a bugzilla blackbox that forces all reports to be private/secret. So,
>> unstable+secretive development makes developing for CentOS Stream
>> nearly as fun as developing for macOS, which is to say, not very fun.
> From an admin and developer perspective I find Fedora Server a real
> gem. Speaking from experience, I would much rather work on Fedora than
> CentOS or Red Hat.  Fedora Server comes with the latest stable tools
> and does not need things like Software Collections (SCL) to get a
> modern Apache, Python or PHP.
>
> Every year or so Fedora Server needs a DNF System Upgrade
> (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/dnf-system-upgrade/),
> which is like a Ubuntu dist-upgrade. I've not had one go bad since I
> started using it back around F12 or F15.
>
> If Wireguard needs to make a Red Hat-family recommendation, I think it
> would be wise to consider Fedora Server.
>
> Jeff

Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 8:06 AM Silvan Nagl <mail@53c70r.de> wrote:
>
> Thank you for this information.
> Since Stream is more or less like a very old Fedora version now I am
> convinced using Fedora Server wont be that bad at all.
>
> Gonna test it soon.

Yeah, I think you'll like it.

I got tired of dicking around with all the breaks and workarounds
caused by Red Hat and CentOS antique software. I also did not feel
comfortable with abandoned kernels.

I don't understand how Red Hat or CentOS can provide a 2.6 or 3.10
kernel in good conscience. Even the kernel folks tell you to use a
modern kernel, because those old kernels get no attention. The new
kernels get the bug fixes and security updates (and include the bug
fixes of the old kernels).

Jeff

Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 8:06 AM Silvan Nagl <mail@53c70r.de> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for this information.
>> Since Stream is more or less like a very old Fedora version now I am
>> convinced using Fedora Server wont be that bad at all.
>>
>> Gonna test it soon.
>
> Yeah, I think you'll like it.
>
> I got tired of dicking around with all the breaks and workarounds
> caused by Red Hat and CentOS antique software. I also did not feel
> comfortable with abandoned kernels.
>
> I don't understand how Red Hat or CentOS can provide a 2.6 or 3.10
> kernel in good conscience. Even the kernel folks tell you to use a
> modern kernel, because those old kernels get no attention. The new
> kernels get the bug fixes and security updates (and include the bug
> fixes of the old kernels).

The version number for RHEL kernels is completely fictional. IIRC we
backport 1/3 of all patches in each new kernel release, but keep the
version number fixed and do an insane amount of engineering to keep the
internal kernel ABI stable in spite of the backports.

We can argue about whether this is a reasonable thing to do in the first
place (and I'm not sure I'll actually argue that it is), but it's wrong
to think of RHEL kernels as "ancient with no security updates"... :)

-Toke

Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream

[Joe Doss]

On 1/4/21 3:55 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> From an admin and developer perspective I find Fedora Server a real
> gem. Speaking from experience, I would much rather work on Fedora than
> CentOS or Red Hat.  Fedora Server comes with the latest stable tools
> and does not need things like Software Collections (SCL) to get a
> modern Apache, Python or PHP.

Same! I actually ran Fedora Cloud in production for 5 years at my
previous job across AWS and GCP with about 400 VMs. We did 6mo OS
refreshes and patching when needed. Fedora in production is super stable
for my use cases. We're using Fedora CoreOS at my current job now and
it's pretty great too.

Joe




-- 
Joe Doss
joe@solidadmin.com

Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream

[Joe Doss]

On 1/5/21 5:25 AM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> Is Fedora a rolling release so to speak? I remember they used to call
> fedora the bleeding edge distro not really geared for production
> environments is that still accurate. I have only used it as a work
> station desktop with KDE installed.

It has a release about every 6 months [1], so I wouldn't call it a
rolling release. You can use DNF System Upgrade to move up to the next
release pretty easily with a bit of downtime.

I have used Fedora a lot in production and I find that it works great. I
don't consider it bleeding edge at all unless you run Fedora Rawhide
[2]. If you are looking for a rolling release Fedora, checkout Fedora
CoreOS [3], but that comes with some changes on how you use it since it
is a container-focused operating system.

The kernel that ships in Fedora has WireGuard included and the
wireguard-tools package is in the main repo. IMO if you want to use a
Red Hat variant of Linux with WireGuard, Fedora Server, Fedora Cloud
[4], or Fedora CoreOS are your best choices. I use Fedora Server at home
and Fedora CoreOS at work with WireGuard everyday.

Joe


[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Rawhide
[3] https://getfedora.org/en/coreos?stream=stable
[4] https://alt.fedoraproject.org/cloud/

-- 
Joe Doss
joe@solidadmin.com

Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream

[Silvan Nagl]

I'm kinda amazed by Fedora Server at this point.
+1 for recommendation.

On 1/5/21 12:25 PM, Jonathan Aquilina wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is Fedora a rolling release so to speak? I remember they used to call fedora the bleeding edge distro not really geared for production environments is that still accurate. I have only used it as a work station desktop with KDE installed.
>
> Regards,
> Jonathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WireGuard <wireguard-bounces@lists.zx2c4.com> On Behalf Of Jeffrey Walton
> Sent: 04 January 2021 22:55
> To: Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com>
> Cc: WireGuard mailing list <wireguard@lists.zx2c4.com>
> Subject: Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream
>
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 7:48 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 2:24 AM Joe Doss <joe@solidadmin.com> wrote:
>>> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jdoss/wireguard/
>>>
>>> The official DKMS install method for CentOS has a Stream repo 
>>> enabled. It should work fine. Let us know if you have any issues.
>> It's actually presently broken. I've fixed it in the master branch with:
>> https://git.zx2c4.com/wireguard-linux-compat/commit/?id=f7f55464a156e1
>> 181fa76d9c7e2fc0d495f2357e
>>
>> But Red Hat still has not fixed other bugs that will enable our CI to 
>> continue, and I won't release for RHEL alone until the CI is green.
>> You can cherry pick that into your dkms package if you need. I wrote 
>> Red Hat a patch and sent it, but there's been no updated kernel yet.
>>
>> More generally, I'm on the fence about how much I actually want to 
>> support CentOS Stream. CentOS non-Stream is annoying, because it's 
>> developed behind closed doors and is extremely slow to fix things, but 
>> at least the changes are gradual and it's easy to keep up with, by 
>> virtue of rarely changing. In contrast, CentOS Stream is fast moving, 
>> and extremely unstable, with builds frequently breaking. This would be 
>> fine and I would prefer it, since it means we can in theory get things 
>> fixed reasonably fast, but actually, Stream is still developed behind 
>> closed doors, with no visibility about what's going on, no 
>> communication from RH on when fixes are coming out, no regular or 
>> reliable release schedule, no releases for months sometimes, and just 
>> a bugzilla blackbox that forces all reports to be private/secret. So,
>> unstable+secretive development makes developing for CentOS Stream
>> nearly as fun as developing for macOS, which is to say, not very fun.
> From an admin and developer perspective I find Fedora Server a real gem. Speaking from experience, I would much rather work on Fedora than CentOS or Red Hat.  Fedora Server comes with the latest stable tools and does not need things like Software Collections (SCL) to get a modern Apache, Python or PHP.
>
> Every year or so Fedora Server needs a DNF System Upgrade (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/dnf-system-upgrade/),
> which is like a Ubuntu dist-upgrade. I've not had one go bad since I started using it back around F12 or F15.
>
> If Wireguard needs to make a Red Hat-family recommendation, I think it would be wise to consider Fedora Server.
>
> Jeff

Re: Wireguard not available for CentOS Stream

[Christopher Ng]

dkms doesn't work on CentOSStream at the moment:

DKMS make.log for wireguard-1.0.20201221 for kernel
4.18.0-259.el8.x86_64 (x86_64)
Tue 12 Jan 09:55:51 GMT 2021
make: Entering directory '/usr/src/kernels/4.18.0-259.el8.x86_64'
  CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/main.o
  CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/noise.o
  CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/device.o
  CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/peer.o
  CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/timers.o
  CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/queueing.o
  CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/send.o
  CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/receive.o
  CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/socket.o
  CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/peerlookup.o
  CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/allowedips.o
  CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/ratelimiter.o
  CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/cookie.o
  CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/netlink.o
  CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/chacha20/chacha20.o
  PERLASM /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/chacha20/chacha20-x86_64.S
  CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/poly1305/poly1305.o
  PERLASM /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/poly1305/poly1305-x86_64.S
  CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/chacha20poly1305.o
  CC [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/blake2s/blake2s.o
  AS [M]  /var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/blake2s/blake2s-x86_64.o
In file included from <command-line>:
/var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/compat/compat-asm.h:44:
warning: "SYM_FUNC_START" redefined
 #define SYM_FUNC_START ENTRY

In file included from
/var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/compat/compat-asm.h:9,
                 from <command-line>:
./include/linux/linkage.h:218: note: this is the location of the
previous definition
 #define SYM_FUNC_START(name)    \

In file included from <command-line>:
/var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/compat/compat-asm.h:45:
warning: "SYM_FUNC_END" redefined
 #define SYM_FUNC_END ENDPROC

In file included from
/var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/compat/compat-asm.h:9,
                 from <command-line>:
./include/linux/linkage.h:265: note: this is the location of the
previous definition
 #define SYM_FUNC_END(name)    \

/var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/blake2s/blake2s-x86_64.S:
Assembler messages:
/var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/blake2s/blake2s-x86_64.S:50:
Error: invalid character '(' in mnemonic
/var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/blake2s/blake2s-x86_64.S:176:
Error: invalid character '(' in mnemonic
/var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/blake2s/blake2s-x86_64.S:180:
Error: invalid character '(' in mnemonic
/var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/blake2s/blake2s-x86_64.S:257:
Error: invalid character '(' in mnemonic
make[1]: *** [scripts/Makefile.build:415:
/var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build/crypto/zinc/blake2s/blake2s-x86_64.o]
Error 1
make[1]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
make: *** [Makefile:1545:
_module_/var/lib/dkms/wireguard/1.0.20201221/build] Error 2
make: Leaving directory '/usr/src/kernels/4.18.0-259.el8.x86_64'

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 at 01:26, Joe Doss <joe@solidadmin.com> wrote:
>
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jdoss/wireguard/
>
> The official DKMS install method for CentOS has a Stream repo enabled. It
> should work fine. Let us know if you have any issues.
>
> Joe
>
> On January 3, 2021 2:19:30 PM Silvan Nagl <mail@53c70r.de> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > i noticed that no Wireguard installation source currently supports
> > CentOS Stream and its newer Kernels.
> > Will there be support for it?
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Silvan
>
>
>