Search Results

Search found 4 results on 1 pages for 'vitaut'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• LXC container can only access host via bridge

  - by vitaut

  I have an LXC container with i686 Ubuntu 12.04 running on a x86_64 Ubuntu 12.04 host. I've set up a bridge using instructions here. However the ping from the container only goes through to the host and not to other machines on the local network. Similarly only the host and not the other machines see the container OS. The host's /etc/network/interfaces file looks as follows: auto lo iface lo inet loopback iface eth0 inet manual auto br0 iface br0 inet dhcp bridge_ports eth0 bridge_fd 0 bridge_maxwait 0 The container's /etc/network/interfaces file looks as follows: auto lo iface lo inet loopback auto eth0 iface eth0 inet dhcp And here's the relevant part of the container's config: lxc.network.type=veth lxc.network.link=br0 lxc.network.flags=up Any ideas what I'm doing wrong? Additional info: The output of iptables-save on host: $ sudo iptables-save # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.12 on Sat Oct 26 06:06:48 2013 *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [6854:721708] :FORWARD ACCEPT [4067:538895] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [4967:522405] COMMIT # Completed on Sat Oct 26 06:06:48 2013 # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.12 on Sat Oct 26 06:06:48 2013 *nat :PREROUTING ACCEPT [82235:21547307] :INPUT ACCEPT [16:1070] :OUTPUT ACCEPT [9386:583359] :POSTROUTING ACCEPT [14693:1291952] -A POSTROUTING -s 10.0.3.0/24 ! -d 10.0.3.0/24 -j MASQUERADE COMMIT # Completed on Sat Oct 26 06:06:48 2013 The output of brctl show on host: $ brctl show bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces br0 8000.080027409684 no eth0 vethBkwWyV The output of ifconfig br0 on host: $ ifconfig br0 br0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 08:00:27:40:96:84 inet addr:192.168.1.11 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::a00:27ff:fe40:9684/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:232863 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:59518 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:34437354 (34.4 MB) TX bytes:198492871 (198.4 MB) The output of ifconfig eth0 on host: $ ifconfig eth0 eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 08:00:27:40:96:84 inet6 addr: fe80::a00:27ff:fe40:9684/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:299419 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:203569 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:59077446 (59.0 MB) TX bytes:372056540 (372.0 MB) The output of ifconfig eth0 on container: $ ifconfig eth0 eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:16:3e:74:08:2b inet addr:192.168.1.12 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 inet6 addr: fe80::216:3eff:fe74:82b/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:81 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:113 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:8506 (8.5 KB) TX bytes:9021 (9.0 KB)

  Read the article

• Invalid instruction suffix for push when assembling with gas

  - by vitaut

  When assembling a file with GNU assembler I get the following error: hello.s:6: Error: invalid instruction suffix for `push' Here's the file that I'm trying to assemble: .text LC0: .ascii "Hello, world!\12\0" .globl _main _main: pushl %ebp movl %esp, %ebp subl $8, %esp andl $-16, %esp movl $0, %eax movl %eax, -4(%ebp) movl -4(%ebp), %eax call __alloca call ___main movl $LC0, (%esp) call _printf movl $0, %eax leave ret What is wrong here and how do I fix it?

  Read the article

• How to convince a colleague that code duplication is bad?

  - by vitaut

  A colleague of mine was implementing a new feature in a project we work on together and he did it by taking a file containing the implementation of a similar feature from the same project, creating a copy of it renaming all the global declarations and slightly modifying the implementation. So we ended up with two large files that are almost identical apart from renaming. I tried to explain that it makes our project more difficult to maintain but he doesn't want to change anything saying that it is easier for him to program in such way and that there is no reason to fix the code if it "ain't broke". How can I convince him that such code duplication is a bad thing? It is related to this questions, but I am more interested in the answers targeted to a technical person (another programmer), for example a reference to an authoritative source like a book would be great. I have already tried simple arguments and haven't succeeded.

  Read the article

• Does binding temporary to a reference require a copy constructor in C++?

  - by vitaut

  Consider the following code: class A { A(const A&); public: A() {} }; int main() { const A &a = A(); } This code compiles fine with GCC, but fails to compile with Visual C++ with the following error: test.cc(8) : error C2248: 'A::A' : cannot access private member declared in class 'A' test.cc(2) : see declaration of 'A::A' test.cc(1) : see declaration of 'A' So is it necessary to have a copy constructor accessible when binding a temporary to a reference?

  Read the article

1