From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>
To: location@lists.ipfire.org
Subject:
 Re: [0.9.12] export --format xt_geoip: (25, 'Inappropriate ioctl for device')
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 16:36:46 +0100
Message-ID: <034495A8-9200-47CF-854D-D8C2B4F39C31@ipfire.org>
In-Reply-To: <6A45D93F-D405-450A-A9EF-EDA962FF5CBE@ipfire.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7777116457585239230=="
List-Id: <location.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============7777116457585239230==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello Valters,

Here is the fix:

  https://git.ipfire.org/?p=3Dlocation/libloc.git;a=3Dcommitdiff;h=3D47b55e70=
60f6714889d2a8a45dd01e3452e2db38

The error was shown incorrectly because this was the last syscall that failed=
 (but it was executed by Python and not us).

The real reason is that the wrong prefix was used for IPv4 addresses which re=
sulted in a sanity check failing. However, I did not catch that very well bec=
ause it is incredibly unlikely to fail.

Please confirm to me whether or not this patch resolves the problem.

I was also going to ask on this list whether people would rely on support for=
 xt_geoip. IPFire has just replaced xt_geoip with ipset and so we don=E2=80=
=99t need the code any more which is probably why I didn=E2=80=99t catch this=
 problem earlier - I have added a small test though. Writing more tests, bett=
er development documentation and returning better error codes in some places =
is on our TODO list, but we are incredibly lacking time and human resources t=
o allocate to this. Can you help?

-Michael

> On 29 Mar 2022, at 16:03, Michael Tremer <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org> wrot=
e:
>=20
> Hello Valters,
>=20
> Yes I can reproduce this on Debian 11 with the latest build from the Debian=
 repository.
>=20
> -Michael
>=20
>> On 29 Mar 2022, at 15:43, Valters Jansons <valter.jansons(a)gmail.com> wro=
te:
>>=20
>> I am wondering if maybe it has been broken previously but we never picked =
it up. Say, from ce1e53c "export: Sightly refactor export logic" in some magi=
cal case.
>>=20
>> Michael, in any case, can you repro what I am seeing on the current releas=
e?
>>=20
>> -Valters
>=20


--===============7777116457585239230==--