Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
This "fixme" message is just a warning issued by iptables on ALL situations.
That is surely not the cause of your problem....
You say that selecting up to 32 apps on the list works fine (you can apply the
rules), but selecting more than 32 apps causes an error? Is my understanding
correct?
If that is the case, what "exit code" do you get? And is there any other
message rather than this "fixme" one?
Original comment by rodrigo...@gmail.com
on 14 Apr 2011 at 12:26
Yes, it appears so. There is no error code other than the message. All apps
are allowed to communicate after 32, so output chain is now not protecting
outbound traffic. It appears to set the uid checks from 0 to 999999 for some
reason.
Original comment by kristian...@gmail.com
on 14 Apr 2011 at 4:40
What is the output of "Show Rules"? You can also get that with the following
command on a terminal emulator:
iptables -L -v
Original comment by rodrigo...@gmail.com
on 14 Apr 2011 at 4:53
FWIW I also suddenly started getting this error on my Viewsonic G-Tablet
running Cyanogenmod 7, immediately after adding two new rules.
To fix it, I went into "Manage Applications" and selected to clear the
applications data and went through configuring everything up again and now it
works.
I currently have 38 rules and it's working ok. But I've only been selecting the
wifi option as this device doesn't have a mobile phone connection...
Original comment by grepular@googlemail.com
on 18 Apr 2011 at 10:07
I am not able to reproduce the bug reliably either. It seems to occur on and
off, without any predictability I can discern. Based on grepular's comments
though, it seems to affect more people so we should keep the bug open until a
proper bug reproduction recipe is crafted.
Original comment by kristian...@gmail.com
on 18 Apr 2011 at 10:21
Providing the "Show Rules" output would be really helpful. Thanks
Original comment by rodrigo...@gmail.com
on 18 Apr 2011 at 12:11
Hrmm, I sent an email reply via my phone a few days ago with the .ipt output
file. For some reason it did not make it into this report. Strange. You may
want to see why that happened. I thought that reply by email was allowed, since
the footer says so. Here it is again though...
"""
from Kristian Erik Hermansen <kristian.hermansen@gmail.com>
sender-time Sent at 12:20 PM (GMT-04:00). Current time there: 8:15 AM. ✆
to droidwall@googlecode.com
date Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:20 PM
subject Re: Issue 135 in droidwall: "fix me" error message
mailed-by gmail.com
hide details Apr 14 (3 days ago)
The error in question goes to stderr on iptables list and I didn't capture it.
The show rules looks slightly different and has the problem showing uid 0 to
999999. Output attached.
--
Kristian Erik Hermansen
On Apr 14, 2011 12:53 PM, <droidwall@googlecode.com> wrote:
droidwall.ipt
8K Download
"""
Original comment by kristian...@gmail.com
on 18 Apr 2011 at 12:18
Attachments:
Perhaps e-mail replies don't work with attachments... but I really don't know.
From the rules you attached, I can see that:
- DroidWall correctly configured all iptables rules and was working for some time. I can be sure of that because many rules were hit several times.
- Some other application purged iptables OUTPUT chain for some reason. After that, DroidWall rules are simply bypassed.
Maybe you have the same problem described on issue 123 ? Just a blind guess
tough...
Original comment by rodrigo...@gmail.com
on 18 Apr 2011 at 1:12
Can you please check if this still happens on DroidWall 1.5.1 released today?
Thanks!
Original comment by rodrigo...@gmail.com
on 28 Apr 2011 at 6:36
I installed the latest update and rebooted. I still see the "FIXME" message at
the bottom of "Show Rules", but the rules are working properly and have been
for a little while now. Thanks!
Original comment by kristian...@gmail.com
on 28 Apr 2011 at 6:46
Great!
The "FIXME" message is on Android source-code (on its libc implementation), so
it is impossible to get rid of it right now, we need to wait for someone to
change that on Android. But that is purely cosmetic.
Original comment by rodrigo...@gmail.com
on 28 Apr 2011 at 7:00
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
kristian...@gmail.com
on 14 Apr 2011 at 9:18