Bug 1404076

Summary:	Querying for a port range within another port range in firewalld gives 'no' output.
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8	Reporter:	Akhil John <ajohn>
Component:	firewalld	Assignee:	Eric Garver <egarver>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Jiri Peska <jpeska>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	8.1	CC:	atragler, egarver, jmaxwell, jpeska, rkhan, sukulkar, todoleza
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	firewalld-0.8.2-1.el8	Doc Type:	No Doc Update
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2020-11-04 01:39:57 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	1637204
Bug Blocks:	1807630, 1825061

Description Akhil John 2016-12-13 01:58:20 UTC

Description of problem:
If a port is opened and run --query-port, it shows Yes. But if I open a port range and query a port within that range, it shows No.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
- All RHEL 7 versions
- firewalld package

How reproducible:
Add a port range in firewalld using --add-port option and query a port within that range using --query-port. The output shows No

Steps to Reproduce:
1.# firewall-cmd --add-port=8080/tcp; firewall-cmd --add-port=825-830/tcp
2.firewall-cmd --list-all
public (active)
  target: default
  icmp-block-inversion: no
  interfaces: eth0
  sources: 
  services: dhcpv6-client ssh
  ports: 8080/tcp 825-830/tcp
  protocols: 
  masquerade: no
  forward-ports: 
  sourceports: 
  icmp-blocks: 
  rich rules: 

3.

Actual results:
# firewall-cmd --query-port=830/tcp
no

# firewall-cmd --query-port=829/tcp
no

# firewall-cmd --query-port=8080/tcp
yes


Expected results:
# firewall-cmd --query-port=830/tcp
yes

# firewall-cmd --query-port=829/tcp
yes

# firewall-cmd --query-port=8080/tcp
yes

Additional info:

Comment 3 Eric Garver 2018-04-03 14:14:07 UTC

*** Bug 1563281 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 4 Eric Garver 2018-08-21 17:49:13 UTC

Fixes upstream:

  2925de324443 ("ports: allow querying a single added by range")
  3fb707228ced ("tests/regression: add coverage for rhbz 1404076")

Comment 7 Tomas Dolezal 2019-11-06 15:23:14 UTC

moving to rhel8 as a bug report, ports within a range are correctly reported as present, but that does not apply for subranges.
firewalld-0.7.0-5.el8.noarch

last line should be also 'yes'
for port in 3199 3200 3250 3299 3300 3200-3300 3250-3260 ; do echo -ne "port $port/tcp:\t"; firewall-cmd --query-port $port/tcp; done
port 3199/tcp:	no
port 3200/tcp:	yes
port 3250/tcp:	yes
port 3299/tcp:	yes
port 3300/tcp:	yes
port 3200-3300/tcp:	yes
port 3250-3260/tcp:	no

Comment 8 Tomas Dolezal 2019-11-06 15:27:43 UTC

(In reply to Tomas Dolezal from comment #7)
> port 3200-3300/tcp:	yes
this port range was defined before the output in previous comment
# firewall-cmd --list-ports
3200-3300/tcp

Comment 10 Eric Garver 2020-03-19 21:06:09 UTC

Upstream:

fae2b48a5880 ("test: regression/rhbz1404076: enhance to include sub ranges")
f12e1587433c ("fix: source_port: support querying sub ranges")
6c0b07ad482d ("fix: port: support querying sub ranges")
cd8e0c3774a6 ("improvement: port: simplify queryPort")

Comment 20 errata-xmlrpc 2020-11-04 01:39:57 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (firewalld bug fix and enhancement update), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2020:4461