[gentoo-user] curious thing with net.eth0

[gentoo-user] curious thing with net.eth0

[Eric S. Johansson]

updated a couple of machines to 2005.1+ sometime in the past month. 
Everything went fine or so I thought.  Had to reboot one of the machines 
today.  It wouldn't boot.  Everything started okay or so it seemed 
except eth0 wasn't present.  The module was compiled in the kernel, the 
configuration was the same as it had been for a long time.

The problem was /etc/init.d/net.eth0 and /etc/init.d/net.lo were the 
same.  The net.eth0 code was overwritten with the lo code.

This happened on two machines and I'm wondering how it happened?  Did 
something go wrong in the emerge process?  There's no sign of any attackers.

ideas?

--- eric
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] curious thing with net.eth0

[Renat Golubchyk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 653 bytes --]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:06:26 -0400 "Eric S. Johansson" <esj@harvee.org>
wrote:
> The problem was /etc/init.d/net.eth0 and /etc/init.d/net.lo were the 
> same.  The net.eth0 code was overwritten with the lo code.
> 
> This happened on two machines and I'm wondering how it happened?  Did 
> something go wrong in the emerge process?  There's no sign of any
> attackers.

They are always the same since net.eth0 (and all other net.<interface>)
is a symlink to net.lo.

Cheers,
Renat


-- 
Probleme kann man niemals mit derselben Denkweise loesen,
durch die sie entstanden sind.
                                              (Einstein)

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

Re: [gentoo-user] curious thing with net.eth0

[Eric S. Johansson]

Renat Golubchyk wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:06:26 -0400 "Eric S. Johansson" <esj@harvee.org>
> wrote:
>> The problem was /etc/init.d/net.eth0 and /etc/init.d/net.lo were the 
>> same.  The net.eth0 code was overwritten with the lo code.
>>
>> This happened on two machines and I'm wondering how it happened?  Did 
>> something go wrong in the emerge process?  There's no sign of any
>> attackers.
> 
> They are always the same since net.eth0 (and all other net.<interface>)
> is a symlink to net.lo.

then that's what broke.  net.lo looks like it should and my net.eth0 
looks like:

relay2 ~ # more /etc/init.d/net.eth0
#!/sbin/runscript
# Copyright 1999-2004 Gentoo Technologies, Inc.
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
# $Header: /home/cvsroot/gentoo-src/rc-scripts/init.d/net.lo,v 1.10 
2004/04/21 17:09:18 vapier Exp $

start() {
         ebegin "Bringing ${IFACE} up"
         /sbin/ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1 up 2>/dev/null
         /sbin/route add -net 127.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 \
                 gw 127.0.0.1 dev lo 2> /dev/null
         eend 0
}

stop() {
         ebegin "Bringing ${IFACE} down"
         /sbin/ifconfig ${IFACE} down &>/dev/null
         eend 0
}


I thought they were the same because I was debugging one machine over 
the telephone and looking at a couple of different machines for examples 
and things got a mite confused.  In other words, it's wrong just not the 
wrong way I thought it was.


--- eric

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] curious thing with net.eth0

[Willie Wong]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 03:34:25PM -0400, Eric S. Johansson wrote:
> Renat Golubchyk wrote:
> >On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 15:06:26 -0400 "Eric S. Johansson" <esj@harvee.org>
> >wrote:
> >>The problem was /etc/init.d/net.eth0 and /etc/init.d/net.lo were the 
> >>same.  The net.eth0 code was overwritten with the lo code.
> >>
> >>This happened on two machines and I'm wondering how it happened?  Did 
> >>something go wrong in the emerge process?  There's no sign of any
> >>attackers.
> >
> >They are always the same since net.eth0 (and all other net.<interface>)
> >is a symlink to net.lo.
> 
> then that's what broke.  net.lo looks like it should and my net.eth0 
> looks like:
> 

Is net.eth0 a symlink to net.lo? If not, remove net.eth0 and symlink
it to net.lo. 

If net.eth0 is already a symlink, then something is seriously wrong,
since the file you just showed us was definitely not the 2005.1 one. 

W
-- 
AlexMc: Physics? Physics is EZ..
M: The Langrangian is self evident.
AlexMc: Well... not that easy.
Sortir en Pantoufles: up 2 days, 12:37
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] curious thing with net.eth0

[Eric S. Johansson]

Willie Wong wrote:
> Is net.eth0 a symlink to net.lo? If not, remove net.eth0 and symlink
> it to net.lo. 

wasn't and did.  now fighting with squirrelmail upgrade and apache ssl

not fun day.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list