linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* 2.4.23 masquerading broken?
@ 2003-12-02 16:56 Wilmer van der Gaast
  2003-12-02 17:25 ` Patrick McHardy
  2003-12-03 10:30 ` 2.4.23 masquerading broken? key.oif = 0; perhaps in bad position ? Zoran Davidovac
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Wilmer van der Gaast @ 2003-12-02 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1052 bytes --]

For security reasons, I upgraded to 2.4.23 last night. Now, suddenly, IP
masquerading seems to be broken. When I use SNAT instead of
masquerading, everything works.

Unfortunately, I think it's hard to reproduce the problem. Right after
booting .23 for the first time, everything seemed to be okay. The
problems started just an hour ago, after having the server running for
fifteen hours without any problems.

Unfortunately there's not much more information I can provide. I can
attach my iptables/rule/route file and keep my machine running in case
anyone needs/wants more information. For now I'll just stick with SNAT.
It works good enough for me.

Just FYI, and maybe someone else will have a similar problem.

Wilmer v/d Gaast. (not on the list)

-- 
+-------- .''`.     - -- ---+  +        - -- --- ---- ----- ------+
| lintux : :'  :  lintux.cx |  | OSS Programmer   www.bitlbee.org |
|   at   `. `~'  debian.org |  | www.algoritme.nl   www.lintux.cx |
+--- -- -  ` ---------------+  +------ ----- ---- --- -- -        +

[-- Attachment #1.2: S19router --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3561 bytes --]

#!/bin/sh

if [ "$1" != "start" ]; then
	exit;
fi

if ! ifconfig hensema > /dev/null 2> /dev/null; then sleep 1; fi

catnet="130.89.203.37"
utwente="utwente"
hensema="hensema"

echo -n 'Setting up routes and iptables... '

## Without this Linux will reject packets from outside the network
echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth1/rp_filter

iptables -F
iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT
iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT
iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT
iptables -t nat -F

iptables -A INPUT -i wlan0 -p tcp --dport ssh -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i wlan0 -p tcp --dport tinc -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i wlan0 -p udp --dport tinc -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i wlan0 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i wlan0 -p icmp -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i wlan0 -j REJECT

iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -p tcp --dport ssh -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -p tcp --dport smtp -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -p tcp --dport domain -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -p udp --dport domain -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -p tcp --dport www -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -p tcp --dport imap2 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -p tcp --dport imap3 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -p tcp --dport imaps -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -p icmp -j ACCEPT
iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -j REJECT

iptables -A FORWARD -i wlan0 -j REJECT --reject-with icmp-host-unreachable
#iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j MASQUERADE
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth1 -j SNAT --to-source $catnet

ip route flush table utwente
ip route flush table hensema

## This is a quick hack to flush the rule table. It's not yet perfect.
ip rule list | \
cut -d '	' -f2 | \
sed s/all/0\\/0/g | \
while read LINE; do
	ip rule del $LINE;
done

ip rule add prio 10 to 192.168.0.0/16 table main
ip rule add prio 12 iif hensema table $utwente ## For the ssh->hensema portfw
ip rule add prio 15 from $catnet table $utwente
ip rule add prio 15 from 192.168.7.2 table $hensema
ip rule add prio 20 to 130.89.0.0/16 table $utwente
ip rule add prio 20 to 212.120.64.0/18 table $hensema
ip rule add prio 40 from 192.168.9.11 table $hensema
ip rule add prio 40 from 192.168.9.13 table $hensema
#ip rule add prio 40 from 192.168.9.14 table $hensema
#ip rule add prio 40 from 192.168.9.17 table $hensema
ip rule add prio 55 from 192.168.9.0/24 table $utwente
ip rule add prio 60 table main

ip route flush cache

ip route add table hensema 192.168.7.0/24 dev hensema
ip route add table hensema default via 192.168.7.1 dev hensema
ip route add table utwente 130.89.192.0/20 dev eth1
ip route add table utwente default via 130.89.192.1 dev eth1

ip route add 192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.7.1 dev hensema

## Add default routes as fallbacks. The second route seems to be
## necessary to be able to bind() to eth1 and have things work.
while ip route del default; do :; done
ip route add table main default via 192.168.7.1 dev hensema metric 0
ip route add table main default via 130.89.192.1 dev eth1 metric 1

ip route flush cache

## Port forward stuff
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -d $catnet --dport 2222 -j DNAT --to 192.168.1.1:22
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -d $catnet --dport 2121 -j DNAT --to 192.168.9.15:21
#iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -d $catnet --dport  222 -j DNAT --to 192.168.9.14:22
#iptables -t nat -s \! 192.168.9.0/24 -A POSTROUTING -o hensema -j MASQUERADE
iptables -t nat -s \! 192.168.9.0/24 -A POSTROUTING -o hensema -j SNAT --to-source 192.168.7.2

echo 'OK'

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4.23 masquerading broken?
  2003-12-02 16:56 2.4.23 masquerading broken? Wilmer van der Gaast
@ 2003-12-02 17:25 ` Patrick McHardy
  2003-12-02 17:33   ` Wilmer van der Gaast
  2004-01-10 21:59   ` Harald Welte
  2003-12-03 10:30 ` 2.4.23 masquerading broken? key.oif = 0; perhaps in bad position ? Zoran Davidovac
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Patrick McHardy @ 2003-12-02 17:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wilmer van der Gaast; +Cc: linux-kernel, Netfilter Development Mailinglist

Wilmer van der Gaast wrote:

>For security reasons, I upgraded to 2.4.23 last night. Now, suddenly, IP
>masquerading seems to be broken. When I use SNAT instead of
>masquerading, everything works.
>
>Unfortunately, I think it's hard to reproduce the problem. Right after
>booting .23 for the first time, everything seemed to be okay. The
>problems started just an hour ago, after having the server running for
>fifteen hours without any problems.
>
>Unfortunately there's not much more information I can provide. I can
>attach my iptables/rule/route file and keep my machine running in case
>anyone needs/wants more information. For now I'll just stick with SNAT.
>It works good enough for me.
>  
>

Can you check the ringbuffer for error messages ? What happens
to the packets when masquerading fails ?

Best regards,
Patrick


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4.23 masquerading broken?
  2003-12-02 17:25 ` Patrick McHardy
@ 2003-12-02 17:33   ` Wilmer van der Gaast
  2003-12-02 20:18     ` snpe
  2003-12-02 23:32     ` Patrick McHardy
  2004-01-10 21:59   ` Harald Welte
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Wilmer van der Gaast @ 2003-12-02 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Patrick McHardy; +Cc: linux-kernel, Netfilter Development Mailinglist

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1234 bytes --]

Patrick McHardy (kaber@trash.net) wrote:
> Can you check the ringbuffer for error messages ? What happens
> to the packets when masquerading fails ?
> 
Hmm. Damn, forgot about the syslogs completely. :-(

Dec  2 16:42:30 tosca kernel: MASQUERADE: Route sent us somewhere else.
Dec  2 16:42:44 tosca last message repeated 11 times
Dec  2 16:42:47 tosca kernel: NET: 1 messages suppressed.
Dec  2 16:42:47 tosca kernel: MASQUERADE: Route sent us somewhere else.
Dec  2 16:42:51 tosca kernel: NET: 5 messages suppressed.
Dec  2 16:42:51 tosca kernel: MASQUERADE: Route sent us somewhere else.
Dec  2 16:42:57 tosca kernel: NET: 4 messages suppressed.
Dec  2 16:42:57 tosca kernel: MASQUERADE: Route sent us somewhere else.

And, well, it goes on like that. dmesg is full of messages like this.

The packages seem to get lost completely. At least I don't see them
going out on eth1 (where they should go to).


Wilmer van der Gaast.

-- 
+-------- .''`.     - -- ---+  +        - -- --- ---- ----- ------+
| lintux : :'  :  lintux.cx |  | OSS Programmer   www.bitlbee.org |
|   at   `. `~'  debian.org |  | www.algoritme.nl   www.lintux.cx |
+--- -- -  ` ---------------+  +------ ----- ---- --- -- -        +

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4.23 masquerading broken?
  2003-12-02 17:33   ` Wilmer van der Gaast
@ 2003-12-02 20:18     ` snpe
  2003-12-02 23:32     ` Patrick McHardy
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: snpe @ 2003-12-02 20:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wilmer van der Gaast, Patrick McHardy
  Cc: linux-kernel, Netfilter Development Mailinglist

It work for me
(2.4.23 with linux abi, gcc 3.2 from RedHat 8.0 - netfilter like modules)
regards
Haris Peco
On Tuesday 02 December 2003 05:33 pm, Wilmer van der Gaast wrote:
> Patrick McHardy (kaber@trash.net) wrote:
> > Can you check the ringbuffer for error messages ? What happens
> > to the packets when masquerading fails ?
>
> Hmm. Damn, forgot about the syslogs completely. :-(
>
> Dec  2 16:42:30 tosca kernel: MASQUERADE: Route sent us somewhere else.
> Dec  2 16:42:44 tosca last message repeated 11 times
> Dec  2 16:42:47 tosca kernel: NET: 1 messages suppressed.
> Dec  2 16:42:47 tosca kernel: MASQUERADE: Route sent us somewhere else.
> Dec  2 16:42:51 tosca kernel: NET: 5 messages suppressed.
> Dec  2 16:42:51 tosca kernel: MASQUERADE: Route sent us somewhere else.
> Dec  2 16:42:57 tosca kernel: NET: 4 messages suppressed.
> Dec  2 16:42:57 tosca kernel: MASQUERADE: Route sent us somewhere else.
>
> And, well, it goes on like that. dmesg is full of messages like this.
>
> The packages seem to get lost completely. At least I don't see them
> going out on eth1 (where they should go to).
>
>
> Wilmer van der Gaast.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4.23 masquerading broken?
  2003-12-02 17:33   ` Wilmer van der Gaast
  2003-12-02 20:18     ` snpe
@ 2003-12-02 23:32     ` Patrick McHardy
  2003-12-03  0:45       ` Wilmer van der Gaast
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Patrick McHardy @ 2003-12-02 23:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wilmer van der Gaast; +Cc: linux-kernel, Netfilter Development Mailinglist

Wilmer van der Gaast wrote:

>Dec  2 16:42:57 tosca kernel: NET: 4 messages suppressed.
>Dec  2 16:42:57 tosca kernel: MASQUERADE: Route sent us somewhere else.
>
>And, well, it goes on like that. dmesg is full of messages like this.
>
>The packages seem to get lost completely. At least I don't see them
>going out on eth1 (where they should go to).
>
>  
>
It may be related to using advances routing features ..
Can you give information about the specific IPs ? Is it local traffic ?

Thanks,
Patrick


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4.23 masquerading broken?
  2003-12-02 23:32     ` Patrick McHardy
@ 2003-12-03  0:45       ` Wilmer van der Gaast
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Wilmer van der Gaast @ 2003-12-03  0:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Patrick McHardy; +Cc: linux-kernel, Netfilter Development Mailinglist

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1337 bytes --]

Patrick McHardy (kaber@trash.net) wrote:
> It may be related to using advances routing features ..
> Can you give information about the specific IPs ? Is it local traffic ?
> 
It happens when a packet to a host outside 130.89.*.* is routed through
the eth1 (130.89.203.37) interface. That happens with any traffic not
from .9.11 or .9.13. .9.11 and .9.13 don't have any problems, their
traffic is routed to the other Internet interface without any problems.

Also, traffic to 130.89.*.* from any host is routed to eth1 correctly
and "even" works.

So, in short:

192.168.9.10 -=> 130.89.1.1 works, through eth1
192.168.9.11 -=> 130.89.1.1 works, through eth1
192.168.9.10 -=> www.google.com doesn't work
192.168.9.11 -=> www.google.com works, through hensema (which is what I want)

Also, trying to ping www.google.com through eth1 (hensema is the default
interface) from the bugging machine directly works.

I hope this clarifies something... If not, I can do some more testing
tomorrow.


Greetings,

Wilmer van der Gaast.

-- 
+-------- .''`.     - -- ---+  +        - -- --- ---- ----- ------+
| lintux : :'  :  lintux.cx |  | OSS Programmer   www.bitlbee.org |
|   at   `. `~'  debian.org |  | www.algoritme.nl   www.lintux.cx |
+--- -- -  ` ---------------+  +------ ----- ---- --- -- -        +

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4.23 masquerading broken? key.oif = 0;  perhaps in bad position ?
  2003-12-02 16:56 2.4.23 masquerading broken? Wilmer van der Gaast
  2003-12-02 17:25 ` Patrick McHardy
@ 2003-12-03 10:30 ` Zoran Davidovac
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Zoran Davidovac @ 2003-12-03 10:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wilmer van der Gaast; +Cc: linux-kernel

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2225 bytes --]

Wilmer van der Gaast wrote:
> For security reasons, I upgraded to 2.4.23 last night. Now, suddenly, IP
> masquerading seems to be broken. When I use SNAT instead of
> masquerading, everything works.
> 
> Unfortunately, I think it's hard to reproduce the problem. Right after
> booting .23 for the first time, everything seemed to be okay. The
> problems started just an hour ago, after having the server running for
> fifteen hours without any problems.
> 
> Unfortunately there's not much more information I can provide. I can
> attach my iptables/rule/route file and keep my machine running in case
> anyone needs/wants more information. For now I'll just stick with SNAT.
> It works good enough for me.
> 
> Just FYI, and maybe someone else will have a similar problem.
> 
> Wilmer v/d Gaast. (not on the list)
I remember problem with masquerade on 2.4.22 and there was included attached 
diff on Slackware 9.1


==========================================================================
# This patch is needed in 2.4.22 or else NAT (masquerade) will not work.
# It fixes the "Rusty's broken brain" error/failure.

===== net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_MASQUERADE.c 1.6 vs edited =====
--- 1.6/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_MASQUERADE.c     Tue Aug 12 11:30:12 2003
+++ edited/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_MASQUERADE.c  Thu Aug 28 16:54:15 2003
@@ -90,6 +90,7 @@
  #ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_FWMARK
         key.fwmark = (*pskb)->nfmark;
  #endif
+       key.oif = 0;
         if (ip_route_output_key(&rt, &key) != 0) {
                  /* Funky routing can do this. */
                  if (net_ratelimit())
==========================================================================

interesting is that 2.4.23 is pached BUT

==========================================================================

         key.tos = RT_TOS((*pskb)->nh.iph->tos)|RTO_CONN;
         key.oif = 0;
#ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_FWMARK
         key.fwmark = (*pskb)->nfmark;
#endif
         if (ip_route_output_key(&rt, &key) != 0) {
                 /* Funky routing can do this. */
==========================================================================

So problem is there perhaps, anyway edit file or patch it with att, patch
ipt_MASQ.diff


-- 
Zoran Davidovac

[-- Attachment #2: 2.4.22.nat.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 567 bytes --]

# This patch is needed in 2.4.22 or else NAT (masquerade) will not work.
# It fixes the "Rusty's broken brain" error/failure.

===== net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_MASQUERADE.c 1.6 vs edited =====
--- 1.6/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_MASQUERADE.c	Tue Aug 12 11:30:12 2003
+++ edited/net/ipv4/netfilter/ipt_MASQUERADE.c	Thu Aug 28 16:54:15 2003
@@ -90,6 +90,7 @@
 #ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_FWMARK
 	key.fwmark = (*pskb)->nfmark;
 #endif
+	key.oif = 0;
 	if (ip_route_output_key(&rt, &key) != 0) {
                 /* Funky routing can do this. */
                 if (net_ratelimit())

[-- Attachment #3: ipt_MASQUERADE.c-2.4.23.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 530 bytes --]

--- ipt_MASQUERADE.c.2.4.23	2003-12-03 11:26:45.000000000 +0100
+++ ipt_MASQUERADE.c	2003-12-03 11:27:22.000000000 +0100
@@ -87,10 +87,10 @@
 	key.dst = (*pskb)->nh.iph->daddr;
 	key.src = 0; /* Unknown: that's what we're trying to establish */
 	key.tos = RT_TOS((*pskb)->nh.iph->tos)|RTO_CONN;
-	key.oif = 0;
 #ifdef CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_FWMARK
 	key.fwmark = (*pskb)->nfmark;
 #endif
+	key.oif = 0;
 	if (ip_route_output_key(&rt, &key) != 0) {
                 /* Funky routing can do this. */
                 if (net_ratelimit())

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4.23 masquerading broken?
  2003-12-02 17:25 ` Patrick McHardy
  2003-12-02 17:33   ` Wilmer van der Gaast
@ 2004-01-10 21:59   ` Harald Welte
  2004-01-11 10:40     ` Patrick McHardy
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Harald Welte @ 2004-01-10 21:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Patrick McHardy
  Cc: Wilmer van der Gaast, linux-kernel, Netfilter Development Mailinglist

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1462 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:25:22PM +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Wilmer van der Gaast wrote:
> 
> >For security reasons, I upgraded to 2.4.23 last night. Now, suddenly, IP
> >masquerading seems to be broken. When I use SNAT instead of
> >masquerading, everything works.
> >
> >Unfortunately, I think it's hard to reproduce the problem. Right after
> >booting .23 for the first time, everything seemed to be okay. The
> >problems started just an hour ago, after having the server running for
> >fifteen hours without any problems.
> >
> >Unfortunately there's not much more information I can provide. I can
> >attach my iptables/rule/route file and keep my machine running in case
> >anyone needs/wants more information. For now I'll just stick with SNAT.
> >It works good enough for me.

This seems to be the same as 
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0465.html
and https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=144

I've committed the proposed fix (from #144) into patch-o-matic/pending.

Comments?

> Patrick

Patrick, 

-- 
- Harald Welte <laforge@netfilter.org>             http://www.netfilter.org/
============================================================================
  "Fragmentation is like classful addressing -- an interesting early
   architectural error that shows how much experimentation was going
   on while IP was being designed."                    -- Paul Vixie

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4.23 masquerading broken?
  2004-01-10 21:59   ` Harald Welte
@ 2004-01-11 10:40     ` Patrick McHardy
  2004-01-11 12:08       ` Patrick McHardy
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Patrick McHardy @ 2004-01-11 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Harald Welte
  Cc: Wilmer van der Gaast, linux-kernel, Netfilter Development Mailinglist

Harald Welte wrote:

>This seems to be the same as 
>http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0465.html
>and https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=144
>
>I've committed the proposed fix (from #144) into patch-o-matic/pending.
>
>Comments?
>  
>

I don't know if reverting to 2.4.22 is the correct fix, the change was made after this
mail from Alexey http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-net&m=105915597804604&w=2 ,
he states that giving out ifindex is a bug. I don't understand the problem yet but I'm
looking into it.

BTW: Why do we need a route lookup at all ? Couldn't we just use the first address on 
dev->in_dev->ifa_list ?

Best regards,
Patrick



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* Re: 2.4.23 masquerading broken?
  2004-01-11 10:40     ` Patrick McHardy
@ 2004-01-11 12:08       ` Patrick McHardy
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Patrick McHardy @ 2004-01-11 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Harald Welte
  Cc: Wilmer van der Gaast, linux-kernel, Netfilter Development Mailinglist

Patrick McHardy wrote:

> BTW: Why do we need a route lookup at all ? Couldn't we just use the 
> first address on dev->in_dev->ifa_list ?
>

I've attached two patches (2.4+2.6) to the bugtracker which change
MASQUERADE to use indev->ifa_list->ifa_local. The 2.6 version is
running here without problems so far. Please have a look at
https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=144 .

Best regards,
Patrick


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2004-01-11 12:13 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-12-02 16:56 2.4.23 masquerading broken? Wilmer van der Gaast
2003-12-02 17:25 ` Patrick McHardy
2003-12-02 17:33   ` Wilmer van der Gaast
2003-12-02 20:18     ` snpe
2003-12-02 23:32     ` Patrick McHardy
2003-12-03  0:45       ` Wilmer van der Gaast
2004-01-10 21:59   ` Harald Welte
2004-01-11 10:40     ` Patrick McHardy
2004-01-11 12:08       ` Patrick McHardy
2003-12-03 10:30 ` 2.4.23 masquerading broken? key.oif = 0; perhaps in bad position ? Zoran Davidovac

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).