TL-WR1043ND V3

Report problems and success stories with Gargoyle on various hardware platforms.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
kojow7
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:03 pm

Re: TL-WR1043ND V3

Post by kojow7 »

I'm not sure what I'm looking for, so maybe this will help someone track down what the issue is. If you need me to do something to help track this down just let me know. Investigating the file restart_firewall.sh gives the following info:

1. The line "/etc/init.d/bwmon_gargoyle stop >/dev/null 2>&1"

takes about 20 seconds to complete (maybe this is normal?)


2. The line "ifup_firewall" generates this error:

"uci: Entry not found"


3. The line "service_enabled bwmon_gargoyle && /etc/init.d/bwmon_gargoyle start" generates the following errors:

"uci: Entry not found" (same as the error above)
The two CONNMARK errors
All but one of the iptables errors


4. The line "service_enabled webmon_gargoyle && /etc/init.d/webmon_gargoyle start" generates this error:

"iptables v1.4.21: Couldn't load match `webmon':No such file or directory"

kojow7
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:03 pm

Re: TL-WR1043ND V3

Post by kojow7 »

I tracked down the first "uci: Entry not found" error to the file /usr/lib/gargoyle_firewall_util/gargoyle_firewall_util.sh. This was the line giving the error:

wan_ip=$(uci -p /tmp/state get network.wan.ipaddr)

Not familiar with uci, but when I run "uci -p /tmp/state show" there is no entry called network.wan.ipaddr. There are quite a lot of other entries though.

Also, when I run "ifconfig" I see my public IP address listed as the inet addr for eth0. I am assuming this is what is supposed to be retrieved with the uci command?

kojow7
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:03 pm

Re: TL-WR1043ND V3

Post by kojow7 »

On this page https://wiki.openwrt.org/doc/uci it has the following information:

Get WAN IP address

Backfire

uci -P/var/state get network.wan.ipaddr

The uci state vars are deprecated and not used anymore for network related information. In Trunk (not really uci) do

. /lib/functions/network.sh; network_get_ipaddr ip wan; echo $ip

Should I change the line in my gargoyle_firewall_util.sh to this second line and will there be any side effects for doing so?

Lantis
Moderator
Posts: 6751
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2015 5:33 am
Location: Australia

Re: TL-WR1043ND V3

Post by Lantis »

Your research is very thorough and correct.
You can make that change.
I'll look at pushing it to the main code.
http://lantisproject.com/downloads/gargoyle_ispyisail.php for the latest releases
Please be respectful when posting. I do this in my free time on a volunteer basis.

kojow7
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:03 pm

Re: TL-WR1043ND V3

Post by kojow7 »

Okay, I had to change the following line:

wan_ip=$(uci -P "/var/state" get network.wan.ipaddr)

to:

. /lib/functions/network.sh; network_get_ipaddr ip wan; wan_ip=$ip

in both of these files:

/usr/lib/gargoyle_firewall_util/gargoyle_firewall_util.sh
/etc/init.d/bwmon_gargoyle

This fixed the first few errors I was having. However, the iptables errors still exist. Are the bandwidth and webmon modules missing from this firmware? If so, how do I locate them and install or enable them? Thanks!

kojow7
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:03 pm

Re: TL-WR1043ND V3

Post by kojow7 »

Also, when I enable QOS I still have the following errors when restarting the firewall:

Cannot find device "imq0" (repeated several times)
iptables v1.4.21: unknown option "--todev"

kojow7
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:03 pm

Re: TL-WR1043ND V3

Post by kojow7 »

Well, it seems like I reached a stand still and couldn't figure out the issue. I have now tried both of oviano's images (1.8.1 and 1.9.0) and they both work great for me. I can now see bandwidth charts and the firewall/qos is not generating any errors. Thanks everyone for your help especially Lantis! And thank you oviano for providing the images that are working for me! :)

meazz1
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:40 pm
Location: Auburn, GA. USA

Re: TL-WR1043ND V3

Post by meazz1 »

kojow7 wrote:Well, it seems like I reached a stand still and couldn't figure out the issue. I have now tried both of oviano's images (1.8.1 and 1.9.0) and they both work great for me. I can now see bandwidth charts and the firewall/qos is not generating any errors. Thanks everyone for your help especially Lantis! And thank you oviano for providing the images that are working for me! :)
Glad you got it all figured out.
So, if we both using the same image how come I don't see bandwidth chart?
Any suggestion?

kojow7
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 11:03 pm

Re: TL-WR1043ND V3

Post by kojow7 »

meazz1 wrote:Glad you got it all figured out.
So, if we both using the same image how come I don't see bandwidth chart?
Any suggestion?
Hi meazz1, which image are you using? I was using Lantis' image, but switched to oviano's images. Both of oviano's images are working for bandwidth charts. Lantis' wasn't working correctly for me.

I'm not sure what the difference is between the two images though I think Lantis was working on getting an official one developed.

One thing I noticed is that when I run 'cat /proc/net/ip_tables_matches' the extra modules bandwidth, webmon, etc. are there. Also, for some reason oviano's is still using the old uci standard as mentioned in my previous posts but it still works.

meazz1
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 4:40 pm
Location: Auburn, GA. USA

Re: TL-WR1043ND V3

Post by meazz1 »

kojow7 wrote:
meazz1 wrote:Glad you got it all figured out.
So, if we both using the same image how come I don't see bandwidth chart?
Any suggestion?
Hi meazz1, which image are you using? I was using Lantis' image, but switched to oviano's images. Both of oviano's images are working for bandwidth charts. Lantis' wasn't working correctly for me.

I'm not sure what the difference is between the two images though I think Lantis was working on getting an official one developed.

One thing I noticed is that when I run 'cat /proc/net/ip_tables_matches' the extra modules bandwidth, webmon, etc. are there. Also, for some reason oviano's is still using the old uci standard as mentioned in my previous posts but it still works.
I am using Lanti's.
Is Oviano's from the same CC 1.9 or 1.8?
Can you provide a link?
Right now I am using Lanti's image on this WR1043 v.30 strictly as a dumb access point so the bandwidth chart does not matter but I'd like a complete working router :) !

Post Reply