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@××××××.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@g.o mailing list