Guide for System Log

Is there a guide to understand the output of System log ?

My router has lost wan connection a couple of times in the last few months and I'd like to be able to recognise any useful information in the log as to the cause of that.

So for example, these messages were logged: dnsmasq[630]: exiting on receipt of SIGTERM dnsmasq[2998]: started, version 2.80 cachesize 150 dnsmasq[2998]: DNS service limited to local subnets

Which probably explains the loss of wan connection.

It was preceeded a few seconds earlier by this message:
kern.warn kernel: [ 60.629778] ath10k_pci 0001:01:00.0: Invalid peer id 1 or peer stats buffer, peer: dc63c000 sta: (null)

But I don't know the meaning, significance or severity of this warning.

Also this was logged:
daemon.err uhttpd[814]: luci: accepted login on / for root from

Which was me logging in to find out what was wrong, so I don't see why it is designated as an error.

I understand the System Log is not intended to give a detailed and verbose problem analysis, but it ought to be possible to interpret what the key messages mean.

So what I'm hoping for is a guide that helps me understand the meaning, significance and severity of key messages that are logged.


I'm running 19.07 by the way.

  • You do see "accepted login" correct?
  • Why do you call this an error (in the sense of a problem)???

(It seems obvious that it's logging for security.)

The dnsmasq errors are likely due to the fact the WiFi itself went down.

Now that is probably why...but you never explain if your WAN is over WiFi.

What don't you understand, exactly?

Your question is quite vague, see:

1 Like

Because it is logged via daemon.err instead of :wink:


I'm guessing you didn't look at the Linux Training page and video...?

Maybe this [other page] will help:

(If you disagree that it should be logged an "Error", you may want to inquire with the developers as to why they chose to use the severity "Error" instead of another.)

Per this manual err is used to log ordinary error messages (I'd definitely consider a login "ordinary", don't you?)

Info seem inappropriate, given it's documented usage.

1 Like

lleachii: Why do you call this an error (in the sense of a problem)???

I didn't "call this an error". I suggest you re read my post.

lleachii: Your question is quite vague.

My question was quite clear in the very first line. I suggest you re read my post.

If you have any polite, helpful and relevant comment I'd be pleased to hear it.


Maybe you're not following the thread. You never answered me.

Are you sure you didn't call it an error (your first post surely says that)?

(I'm staring to think you're both posters...or you forgot your first post...or this is to play a "gotcha game"?)

  • And I provided 3 links...were they helpful and relevant?
  • Also, I don't see anywhere I was impolite.

Is there a reason you're trying to portray me as unhelpful, irrelevant and impolite...when I provided 3 links that seem relevant to your question; and you in fact said "error"?

:bulb: Or maybe you didn't realize/re-read that I responded to someone else too?

In case you missed the links above:

@IPA, my apologies if you thought I was being rude by mixing relevant answers/responses with those to @faser; and for the confusion it seemed to have caused.