Bug 1048132

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1028176 +++

Description of problem: We are running keepalived to implement VRRP on some servers.  When a secondary VRRP address is removed, ntpd gets confused and loses contact with its peers because it sets the wrong interface address for communicating with the peers.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
ntp-4.2.6p5-11.fc19.x86_64


How reproducible: Start ntpd, then remove a secondary IP address and watch it set the "dstaddr" to the wrong value.  This can be seen using the ntpq "pstatus" command.  Here is an excerpt from the journalctl log:

Nov 06 17:06:17 ti101 ntpd[1301]: Deleting interface #6 lan0.1009, 192.168.99.1#123, interface stats: received=0, sent=0, dropped=0, active_time=3 secs
Nov 06 17:06:17 ti101 ntpd[1301]: Deleting interface #4 lan0.1004, 50.74.236.198#123, interface stats: received=0, sent=0, dropped=0, active_time=3 secs
Nov 06 17:06:17 ti101 ntpd[1301]: 192.168.79.25 interface 192.168.99.101 -> (none)
Nov 06 17:06:17 ti101 ntpd[1301]: 192.168.79.27 interface 192.168.99.101 -> (none)
Nov 06 17:06:17 ti101 ntpd[1301]: 192.168.59.29 interface 192.168.99.101 -> (none)
Nov 06 17:06:17 ti101 ntpd[1301]: 192.168.59.30 interface 192.168.99.101 -> (none)
Nov 06 17:06:17 ti101 ntpd[1301]: peers refreshed

In ntpd/ntp_io.c, the update_interfaces() function calls remove_interface and then set_peerdstadr() for all affected peers.  The dstadr address is then sometimes set to (none) and sometimes to the address of another interface that is incorrect for communicating with the peer.  The association then goes bad, and we see this output from ntpq:

id      st t when poll reach   delay   offset  jitter
==============================================================================
 ti25            .XFAC.          16 u    - 1024    0    0.000    0.000   0.000
 ti27            .XFAC.          16 u    - 1024    0    0.000    0.000   0.000
 ti29            .XFAC.          16 u    - 1024    0    0.000    0.000   0.000
 ti30            .XFAC.          16 u    - 1024    0    0.000    0.000   0.000



Steps to Reproduce:
1. Use keepalived to run VRRP, or add a secondary IP address manually.
2. Start ntpd
3. Remove secondary IP address either manually or by causing this host to become the VRRP backup.

Actual results: Peer associations are lost.


Expected results: Peer associations should not be lost.


Additional info:

--- Additional comment from Andrew J. Schorr on 2013-11-12 10:42:57 EST ---

It is no longer clear to me that this bug is related to the presence of secondary IP addresses on a given interface.  I think there may be a more general bug where ntpd chooses the wrong dstadr address whenever a system has more than one IP address.  I run ntpd on several routers with multiple network interfaces, and it often seems to choose the wrong dstadr value (as shown by the "lopeers" command).  In other words, it picks the wrong interface.  Restarting ntpd seems to fix the problem.  I guess that maybe it is choosing the dstadr before the ospf routing software has populated the routing table.  I suspect that the logic in ntpd chooses the dstadr value by examining the routing table, I guess by doing the equivalent of an "ip route get".

So I think the bug is that ntpd does not fix the dstadr when the routing table changes.

--- Additional comment from Miroslav Lichvar on 2013-11-12 11:27:02 EST ---

It looks like it could be related to ntp-4.2.6p4-rtnetlink.patch from the ntp package. Can you please try this test package, which disables that patch, and see if you can still reproduce the problem?

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6170678

If that doesn't help, could you try it with the latest upstream development snapshot from http://www.ntp.org/downloads.html?

--- Additional comment from Andrew J. Schorr on 2013-11-12 14:14:29 EST ---

The test package did not help.  It still chose the wrong interface.
I will see if I can package upstream.

...

So I then tried a vanilla "./configure && make".  That works.
I copied the ntpd/ntpd binary to /usr/sbin/ntpd and rebooted.  But bad news: the dev snapshot has the same bug.

I'm not sure where that leaves us.  I guess there's a bug in the source.

--- Additional comment from Miroslav Lichvar on 2013-11-13 03:39:35 EST ---

Ok, thanks for the information.

As the bug is present also in the upstream sources, it should be reported in the upstream bugzilla (https://bugs.ntp.org/). It would be better if you reported it so you can provide feedback there, but if you want I can copy your report from this bug.

--- Additional comment from Andrew J. Schorr on 2013-11-13 10:43:02 EST ---

Upstream bug opened here:

http://bugs.ntp.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2504

--- Additional comment from Andrew J. Schorr on 2013-11-17 20:16:00 EST ---

The upstream bug is now # 2506 found here:

http://bugs.ntp.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2506

Miroslav -- can you please grab those 2 patches for the Fedora rpm?  That should fix the problem.  It seems to be working for me.

But I guess there may really need to be more discussion of ntp bug # 992 to come to a conclusion on this.  It is certainly necessary to listen for IPv4 routing updates.  I don't know enough about IPv6 to have an opinion on that aspect...

Thanks,
Andy

--- Additional comment from Andrew J. Schorr on 2013-11-18 16:34:37 EST ---

Just to be clear, I think the Fedora patch ntp-4.2.6p4-rtnetlink.patch is a problem.  That tells ntpd to ignore changes in the routing table.  Can you please consider removing that patch or modifying it to allow ntpd to monitor at least RTMGRP_IPV4_ROUTE?

It is also confusingly labeled.  It says in the spec file:

# ntpbz #992
Patch8: ntp-4.2.6p4-rtnetlink.patch

But ntp bug #992 was really about adding netlink support, not removing monitoring of routing updates.  If you think this belongs upstream, shouldn't a new bug be opened?

Thanks,
Andy

--- Additional comment from Miroslav Lichvar on 2013-11-19 08:18:39 EST ---

I'll remove the rtnetlink patch and include the new upstream patch once it's in ntp-dev. I kept that part of the rtnetlink patch to avoid what I thought were unnecessary updates. Adding back only IPv4 route updates seems wrong to me, so I'll just drop it completely.

Thanks.