[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

bullseye-backports: collectd's netlink plugin does not work anymore



Hi!

Yesterday I installed collectd from bullseye-backports because I wanted the NUT plugin back. While NUT works fine now, it seems that the netlink plugin is broken instead. When I start collectd I get these error messages:

netlink plugin: link_filter_cb: IFLA_STATS64 attribute has insufficient data.
    netlink plugin: ir_read: mnl_socket_recvfrom failed: Success
read-function of plugin `netlink' failed. Will suspend it for 20.000 seconds.
    netlink plugin: ir_read: mnl_socket_recvfrom failed: Protocol error
read-function of plugin `netlink' failed. Will suspend it for 40.000 seconds.
    [...]

My configuration is pretty much standard:
<Plugin netlink>
        Interface "br0"
        Interface "ppp0"
        Interface "wg0"
        VerboseInterface "br0"
        VerboseInterface "ppp0"
        VerboseInterface "wg0"
        IgnoreSelected false
</Plugin>

and has worked before. I also tried with Interface "All" but it seems the interfaces I use there do not matter.
I also tried with a reboot in between, but that had no effect either.

I tried to understand whats happening there, but the struct that is used here (rtnl_link_stats64 from linux/if_link.h) should not have been changed and should have the same size. Furthermore, collectd has the same codebase (5.12.0), thus there should be no such problems? As far as I understood it, the define HAVE_RTNL_LINK_STATS64 should be defined in bullseye too and thus the same code was working before. Do I maybe miss some other dependency from backports? But there is for example no libmnl0 in backports...
I installed collectd in the following way:

Commandline: apt install collectd/bullseye-backports
Install: libldap-2.5-0:amd64 (2.5.13+dfsg-2~bpo11+1, automatic)
Upgrade: collectd:amd64 (5.12.0-7, 5.12.0-11~bpo11+1), collectd-core:amd64 (5.12.0-7, 5.12.0-11~bpo11+1)

Maybe someone has a hint for me what I could do?
Thanks!

Best,
Sebastian


Reply to: