Bug 29549 - bug (& solution) in /etc/sysconfig/static-routes
Summary: bug (& solution) in /etc/sysconfig/static-routes
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: initscripts
Version: 7.0
Hardware: i386
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Bill Nottingham
QA Contact: David Lawrence
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2001-02-26 14:52 UTC by Tony Mossop
Modified: 2014-03-17 02:19 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

(edit)
Clone Of:
(edit)
Last Closed: 2001-03-05 17:24:17 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Tony Mossop 2001-02-26 14:52:56 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22 i686)


There is a mismatch between /etc/rc2.d/S10network and /sbin/route that
causes failure in the setup of static-routes read from the
/etc/sysconfig/static-routes file. The S10network script explicitly removes
all references to the "gw" gateway flag in the static-routes table that it
passes through to the /sbin/route command (a la sysV conventions). However,
/sbin/route follows BSD conventions and expects the "gw" flag before the
gateway address, failure to include this flag returns the error:
SIOCADDRT: No such device.



Solution: EITHER change the /etc/rc2.d/S10network script removing the
marked lines

[rm]              if [ "${bogus}" = "gw" ]; then
[rm]                /sbin/route add -$type $dest $netmask $mask $args
[rm]              else
                /sbin/route add -$type $dest $netmask $mask $bogus $args
[rm]              fi

OR

allow /sbin/route to understand both BSD and sysV syntax (i.e. have the gw
flag be optional). This is probably the better solution.



cheers
Tony



Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. see description
2.
3.
	

Actual Results:  see description

Expected Results:  see description

This bugzilla interface is really very irritating, I seriously doubt I'll
bother to do this next time. Is it still possible to send bug reports to
bugs@redhat.com ? As not all bug reports fit this forms
based approach.

Comment 1 Bill Nottingham 2001-02-26 14:57:35 UTC
No, you can't send bugs to bugs@redhat; however, at the top of the new
bug page is a 'Skip all this and go to the standard bug entry form' link,
which allows you to enter free-form text...

Comment 2 Bill Nottingham 2001-03-05 17:24:13 UTC
This was put there to work around problems with certain (broken)
config tools, that wrote silly things like:

etho net 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw eth0

which is, of course, bogus.

Comment 3 Bill Nottingham 2001-03-05 20:31:10 UTC
Will be fixed in 5.70-1; thanks!


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.