linux-igd-devel

[Linux-igd-devel] Next steps [was: Release goals and roadmap...]

[Daniel J B. <dan...@gm...>]

Hi Nektarios,

On 14/08/06, Nektarios K. Papadopoulos <npa...@in...> wrote:
[snip]
> > Following this, I'd like to get some other security-related items
> > tightened up and I have a patch half-cooked for item #1 - this should
> > take a couple of weeks, then after a couple of weeks of code being
> > tested to some degree, perhaps a grand 1.0 release?

> I guess you'll finish item #1 on your own. What about #2 (security
> related issues). Could you elaborate more,  can you split the work to
> pieces so others can help? I could spent some time on this if you
> provide some more details and be sure I don't do duplicate work.

Yes, no problem fixing the interface byte counter bug.

See my next email on the security stuff - it's worthwhile for one on it's own.

> > Following this, it would be great to get Nektarios's excellent patches
> > in and iron out any issues; I've seen at least one potential one,
> > which I'll raise separately

See below.

> > - (I like the "harmonizing" concept I
> > think Juho mentioned) and release version 1.2/1.5/2.0 depending on how
> > significant our renewed energy and redefined image is.
> Thanks for your kind comment. Please raise the issues related to my
> patches as soon as possible, so I can fix them ;-)
> Do you also think I need to split the "Layer3Forwarding and minor
> enhancements" patch into smaller patches or is it ok as is ?

It would be great if you could split the patch, so I can merge them
separately. With the Layer3Forwarding + enhancements patch, I've
started to see "TimerThreadRemove failed!" messages, which weren't
there previously - I don't see anything against merging some or all of
the minor enhancements for 1.0 if they aren't causing this.

> I don't remember what the "harmonizing" concept is. Juho could you explain?

IIRC, this was converging on the "upnpd" name, rather than an
inconsistent set of names from init script, binary, UPnP service name
etc.

Thanks for your help!
-- 
Daniel J Blueman

Re: [Linux-igd-devel] Next steps [was: Release goals and roadmap...]

[Nektarios K. P. <npa...@in...>]

Hi Daniel,

Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> Hi Nektarios,
> 
> On 14/08/06, Nektarios K. Papadopoulos <npa...@in...> wrote:
> [snip]
>>> Following this, I'd like to get some other security-related items
>>> tightened up and I have a patch half-cooked for item #1 - this should
>>> take a couple of weeks, then after a couple of weeks of code being
>>> tested to some degree, perhaps a grand 1.0 release?
> 
>> I guess you'll finish item #1 on your own. What about #2 (security
>> related issues). Could you elaborate more,  can you split the work to
>> pieces so others can help? I could spent some time on this if you
>> provide some more details and be sure I don't do duplicate work.
> 
> Yes, no problem fixing the interface byte counter bug.
> 
> See my next email on the security stuff - it's worthwhile for one on it's own.
> 
>>> Following this, it would be great to get Nektarios's excellent patches
>>> in and iron out any issues; I've seen at least one potential one,
>>> which I'll raise separately
> 
> See below.
> 
>>> - (I like the "harmonizing" concept I
>>> think Juho mentioned) and release version 1.2/1.5/2.0 depending on how
>>> significant our renewed energy and redefined image is.
>> Thanks for your kind comment. Please raise the issues related to my
>> patches as soon as possible, so I can fix them ;-)
>> Do you also think I need to split the "Layer3Forwarding and minor
>> enhancements" patch into smaller patches or is it ok as is ?
> 
> It would be great if you could split the patch, so I can merge them
> separately. With the Layer3Forwarding + enhancements patch, I've
> started to see "TimerThreadRemove failed!" messages, which weren't
> there previously - I don't see anything against merging some or all of
> the minor enhancements for 1.0 if they aren't causing this.
I believe my changes should not cause the "TimerThreadRemove failed!". I 
think I've seen it occasionally when running without my patch. I'll 
check again for this.

Anyway, regarding splitting the patch. Since all changes are practically 
in gatedevice.c, I'm not sure I can create patches that can be accepted 
rejected independently.
I'll have a first patch that just defines ActionError(...). All other 
patches would require this to be applied since I'm using ActionError all 
over :-).

> 
>> I don't remember what the "harmonizing" concept is. Juho could you explain?
> 
> IIRC, this was converging on the "upnpd" name, rather than an
> inconsistent set of names from init script, binary, UPnP service name
> etc.
Ok, I totally agree with this. However I prefer upnp-igd as in my other 
patch ("Building enhancement and a new name" [1]). Although it is rather 
established, I find "upnpd" to be too general as if we expect linux-igd 
to be the only upnp daemon in a system ;-)

> 
> Thanks for your help!
Glad to be able to help ;-)

[1]http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1511242&group_id=52728&atid=467823
-- 
Nektarios K. Papadopoulos
inAccess Networks

Re: [Linux-igd-devel] Next steps [was: Release goals and roadmap...]

[<ju...@ik...>]

On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:55:50 +0300 "Nektarios K. Papadopoulos"
<npa...@in...> wrote:

> >> I don't remember what the "harmonizing" concept is. Juho could you
> explain?
> > 
> > IIRC, this was converging on the "upnpd" name, rather than an
> > inconsistent set of names from init script, binary, UPnP service name
> > etc.
> 
> Ok, I totally agree with this. However I prefer upnp-igd as in my other
> patch ("Building enhancement and a new name" [1]). Although it is
> rather 
> established, I find "upnpd" to be too general as if we expect linux-igd
> to be the only upnp daemon in a system ;-)

Yes, the executable name is one issue, I agree upnp-igd or something even better
would be better than upnpd. IGD is just one area of upnp so maybe it's too
general name to give unless we want IGD to be much more general upnp daemon. But
my main reason for harmonization was the complaining about "linux-igd virus
taking over my windows xp network connection". It should be very clear from the
visible name that a) linux-igd is not a virus and b) linux-igd is not running on
client computers.

No one had updated the website when doing 0.95 release by the way. I wrote a
small entry there, hopefully it will give better image for visitors. But the
situation looks very nice now, I should also try to get some time for some
cleanups. And I can vote subversion as well, just don't know how sourceforge's
subversion situation is doing currently.


Cheers,

Juho