1316309878 Q * ircuser-1 Ping timeout: 480 seconds
1316309954 J * ircuser-1 ~ircuser-1@025.205-93-216-nokia-dsl.dynamic.surewest.net
1316311533 J * derjohn_foo ~aj@p4FFD0F42.dip.t-dialin.net
1316311977 Q * derjohn_mob Ping timeout: 480 seconds
1316312010 Q * fisted Read error: Operation timed out
1316312249 J * fisted ~fisted@xdsl-87-78-216-151.netcologne.de
1316319228 Q * hparker Ping timeout: 480 seconds
1316320132 J * hparker ~hparker@linux.homershut.net
1316320795 M * Bertl off to bed now ... have a good one everyone!
1316320800 N * Bertl Bertl_zZ
1316332410 J * sannes1 ~ace@cm-84.209.106.118.getinternet.no
1316334007 J * bonbons ~bonbons@2001:960:7ab:0:2409:73dc:8792:1bd7
1316338512 J * manana ~mayday090@178.162.120.195
1316345989 J * clopez ~clopez@238.10.117.91.dynamic.mundo-r.com
1316347265 Q * Aiken Quit: Leaving
1316350765 N * Bertl_zZ Bertl
1316350769 M * Bertl morning folks!
1316350989 M * mike_ hi bertl
1316351491 M * Bertl hey, how's going?
1316351768 M * mike_ good and you?
1316351796 M * Bertl looks fine so far ... thanks
1316351993 M * mike_ Bertl: sorry for curiosity but does harry stoped work with grsec patches?
1316352761 M * Bertl seems so, yes
1316353190 M * mike_ why? he done great work
1316353203 M * daniel_hozac no time
1316353390 M * mike_ shame ;<
1316356334 Q * fisted Read error: Connection reset by peer
1316356950 J * fisted ~fisted@xdsl-87-78-208-109.netcologne.de
1316358713 J * pmenier ~pmenier@ACaen-751-1-14-181.w86-220.abo.wanadoo.fr
1316359468 Q * pmenier 
1316366914 M * arekm latest grsec (to be applied on top of latest vserver patch): http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/packages/kernel/kernel-grsec_full.patch?rev=1.80
1316366949 M * arekm or "do it yourself" version: http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/packages/kernel/grsec/3.0/grsec-2.2.2-3.0.4-201108300001-1.patch?rev=1.1 (to be applied to latest grsec patch)
1316367102 Q * FireEgl Remote host closed the connection
1316368758 M * mike_ Bertl: there?
1316368803 M * mike_ http://pastebin.com/jgwhe9wC
1316369926 Q * mike_ Read error: Connection reset by peer
1316373118 J * mike ~mike@ks26083.kimsufi.com
1316377416 M * Bertl mike: wrong util-vserver version for the kernel you are using 
1316378369 Q * sannes1 Remote host closed the connection
1316379428 M * Guy- Bertl: I have another vserver net isolation issue (I think) to report
1316379464 M * Guy- Bertl: tcp reply packets of a server are sent to the correct IP, but the wrong MAC
1316379585 M * daniel_hozac wrong mac?
1316379645 M * Guy- yes.
1316379654 M * daniel_hozac a tcpdump + network setup + what you're expecting?
1316379663 M * Guy- I'm just preparing that
1316379682 M * Guy- in doing so, I have to amend this: not just any mac, but to the MAC of the default gw
1316379709 M * Guy- which is arguably correct in this particular case, it's just different from how previous versions behaved
1316379859 M * Guy- http://paste.linux-vserver.org/20606
1316379991 M * daniel_hozac "previous versions"?
1316380008 M * Guy- e.g. 2.6.38.8
1316380023 M * Guy- I'm using 3.0.4-vs2.3.1-pre10.1 now
1316380025 M * daniel_hozac sounds like that was a temporary bug in 2.6.38.
1316380052 M * Guy- no; all versions I used up to 3.0.4 (and there have been many) behaved "incorrectly"
1316380052 M * daniel_hozac 2.6.3[234] all behave that way.
1316380124 M * Guy- that doesn't match my experience.
1316380146 M * Guy- my routing setup was unchanged since 2 January 2010
1316380151 Q * bonbons Quit: Leaving
1316380169 M * Guy- I'd have noticed if this server hadn't worked :)
1316382010 M * Bertl I have no idea what you are trying to tell me :)
1316382071 M * Bertl you have a destination which is not on the local network, and you expect the host to directly deliver it or what?
1316386482 M * Guy- Bertl: thinking about it, I expect what is happening (or, rather, I'd expect being unable to add the default gw without adding the route that leads to it)
1316386548 M * Guy- Bertl: so I'm telling you I observed a change in behaviour between earlier kernels and the current kernel, possibly related to vserver
1316386589 M * Bertl I really doubt that, but please create a test case to compare kernels
1316386595 M * Guy- Bertl: it started out as an addendum to the route isolation problem we discussed two days ago, but it's now just an observation :)
1316386649 M * Guy- I don't think it's worth the effort of creating a test case; I know I didn't touch routing in over a year, but I'm OK with you not believing me :)
1316386667 M * Bertl thing is, we do not touch the routing process itsel
1316386674 M * Bertl *itself
1316386683 M * Bertl we never did, and if we can, we never will
1316386684 M * Guy- so maybe it was a change in vanilla, not related to vserver at all
1316386717 M * Bertl now, while it might be a mainline change, I doubt that the routing behaviour changed in the way how routes are evaluated
1316386721 M * Guy- but I assure you it changed, because this server worked with this setup and earlier versions (and no, I don't know why, because I see that it shouldn't have)
1316386736 M * Bertl and if there is no direct/local route, then the default route is consulted or you receive an error
1316386756 M * Bertl that's why I'd like to see a simple test case
1316386758 M * Guy- I also still don't see how I can add a default gw to a routing table that doesn't have a route to the default gw
1316386765 M * Guy- but I can.
1316386824 M * Guy- aha, but it can't be an arbitrary gw; only ones that are reachable directly according to the default routing table are accepted
1316386949 M * Guy- anyway, nap attack; good night
1316386956 M * Bertl nn
1316388029 M * Bertl guess I'm off to be now as well ... have a good one everyone!
1316388034 N * Bertl Bertl_zZ
1316389372 Q * misc-- Quit: Leaving