Kernel module

Hello there,

could anyone tell me which (exactly by name or by .config option) kernel
module is responsible for this entry in proc:

/proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_tcp_timeout_established??

Kernel 2.4.18 (on MIPS -> RTL8186).

I don't have this entry (whole netfilter directory) on my router in
"DIY" firmware. It exists on factory firmware and on my desktop.
I'm thinking i have included netfilter modules.

W.P.

Am Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:23:16 +0200 schrieb W.P.:

> Hello there,
>
> could anyone tell me which (exactly by name or by .config option) kernel
> module is responsible for this entry in proc:
>
> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_tcp_timeout_established??
>
> Kernel 2.4.18 (on MIPS -> RTL8186).
>
> I don't have this entry (whole netfilter directory) on my router in
> "DIY" firmware. It exists on factory firmware and on my desktop.
> I'm thinking i have included netfilter modules.
>
> W.P.

CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_ENABLED=y

--
Burkhard Ott
E-Mail burkhard.ott@evolver.de
Web www.evolver.de

W.P. wrote:

> U?ytkownik Burkhard Ott napisa?:
>> Am Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:23:16 +0200 schrieb W.P.:
>>
>>
>>>Hello there,
>>>
>>>could anyone tell me which (exactly by name or by .config option) kernel
>>>module is responsible for this entry in proc:
>>>
>>>/proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_tcp_timeout_established??
>>>
>>>Kernel 2.4.18 (on MIPS -> RTL8186).
>>>
>>>I don't have this entry (whole netfilter directory) on my router in
>>>"DIY" firmware. It exists on factory firmware and on my desktop.
>>>I'm thinking i have included netfilter modules.
>>>
>>>W.P.
>>
>>
>> CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_ENABLED=y
>>
> But it IS set to Y.
> I attach .config
>
> So what is wrong?
>
> W.P.

The proc entry is created in a file called ip_conntrack_standalone.c

I'm not sure I understand the Makefile fully, but it looks like
this file may be only included if you compile contrack as a module.

Try compiling it as a module. The proc entry should appear after
the module is loaded.

Kind regards,

Iwo

Am Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:56:39 +0200 schrieb W.P.:



>> CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_ENABLED=y
>>
> But it IS set to Y.
> I attach .config
>
> So what is wrong?
>

Ok, I used a 2.6.config file in 2.4 it should be the option below but you
will also loose some NAT functionality :-).
Why do you want to remove this option?


> CONFIG_IP_NF_CONNTRACK=n

--
E-Mail burkhard.ott@evolver.de
Web www.evolver.de

Hello,

W.P. a écrit :
>
> could anyone tell me which (exactly by name or by .config option) kernel
> module is responsible for this entry in proc:
>
> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_tcp_timeout_established??
>
> Kernel 2.4.18 (on MIPS -> RTL8186).

The /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_*_timeout* sysctls are not
present in the vanilla 2.4.18 kernel. They were added in version 2.4.23.

They depend on the CONFIG_IP_NF_CONNTRACK option. Since 2.6.20 kernels,
they are also available with the CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_PROC_COMPAT option
when layer 3 independent connection tracking (CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK) is
selected instead of IP connection tracking (CONFIG_IP_NF_CONNTRACK).

W.P. a écrit :
>
> could anyone tell me which (exactly by name or by .config option) kernel
> module is responsible for this entry in proc:
>
> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_tcp_timeout_established??

In addition : the module name (when built as module) is ip_conntrack or
nf_conntrack.

Użytkownik Pascal Hambourg napisał:
> Hello,
>
> W.P. a écrit :
>
>>
>> could anyone tell me which (exactly by name or by .config option) kernel
>> module is responsible for this entry in proc:
>>
>> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_tcp_timeout_established??
>>
>> Kernel 2.4.18 (on MIPS -> RTL8186).
>
>
> The /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_*_timeout* sysctls are not
> present in the vanilla 2.4.18 kernel. They were added in version 2.4.23.
>
> They depend on the CONFIG_IP_NF_CONNTRACK option. Since 2.6.20 kernels,
> they are also available with the CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK_PROC_COMPAT option
> when layer 3 independent connection tracking (CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK) is
> selected instead of IP connection tracking (CONFIG_IP_NF_CONNTRACK).

Great thaks for this answer.

So what is solution? Taking 2.4.23 sources (in ipv4/netfilter part) and
put it in 2.4.18 tree?? Will it work? Or simply remove entry in startup
files that attempts to set this sysctl?

Other problem, but looks similar.
There are 2 more entries -> fast_pptp, fast_l2tp. I think, they are
related to closed source modules from RealTek (not published by Edimax,
opposite to fast_nat module). How do you think, not having those will
lead only to performance degradation, or anything else?. And how to
check this??

W.P.

W.P. a écrit :
>
>>The /proc/sys/net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_conntrack_*_timeout* sysctls are not
>>present in the vanilla 2.4.18 kernel. They were added in version 2.4.23.
>
> So what is solution? Taking 2.4.23 sources (in ipv4/netfilter part) and
> put it in 2.4.18 tree?? Will it work?

You can try, but I strongly doubt it. I suggest that you use a more
recent kernel, because the 2.4.18 kernel is *very* old (thus very broken).
Or you can try to apply the patches from the latest (but obsolete)
patch-o-matic tarball (patch-o-matic-20031219.tar.bz2) which can be
found in <http://ftp.netfilter.org/pub/patch-o-matic/>. I think you need
to apply submitted/01_2.4.19.patch up to submitted/05_2.4.23.patch to
your 2.4.18 tree. The last one provides the conntrack timeout sysctls.

> Other problem, but looks similar.
> There are 2 more entries -> fast_pptp, fast_l2tp. [...]

Sorry, I do not know anything about this.

<cut>

> Or you can try to apply the patches from the latest (but obsolete)
> patch-o-matic tarball (patch-o-matic-20031219.tar.bz2) which can be
> found in <http://ftp.netfilter.org/pub/patch-o-matic/>. I think you need
> to apply submitted/01_2.4.19.patch up to submitted/05_2.4.23.patch to
> your 2.4.18 tree. The last one provides the conntrack timeout sysctls.
<cut>

Thanks, have downloaded those. But excuse me for a stupid question: how
do I apply? I have copied *.patch file to kernel source directory but
patch -i ./xxx.patch complains about missing file (at very beginning,
line 4). File it complains about is present. Could you point me how
should it be done? (I have never patched any program).

W.P.

W.P. a écrit :
>
> Thanks, have downloaded those. But excuse me for a stupid question: how
> do I apply? I have copied *.patch file to kernel source directory but
> patch -i ./xxx.patch complains about missing file (at very beginning,
> line 4). File it complains about is present. Could you point me how
> should it be done? (I have never patched any program).

Usually you need to add the option -p1 when patching at the base source
directory.