Bug 332

Summary: rexecd bug
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: nwilson
Component: rshAssignee: Nalin Dahyabhai <nalin>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact:
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 5.2CC: s.ballestrero
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 1999-03-23 20:20:01 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description nwilson 1998-12-07 20:11:52 UTC
he in.rexecd doesn't behave as the man page indicates. The
man page
says that the server first reads in a number up to a NUL and
then
connects back to the client on that socket for the error
stream. I ran
in.rexecd under strace and verified that in fact after the
server reads
in the port number it sits there trying to read more data
rather than
connecting the socket. Here's the relevant excerpt from the
system
trace:

dup2(0, 0)                              = 0
dup2(0, 1)                              = 1
dup2(0, 2)                              = 2
alarm(60)                               = 0
read(0, "6", 1)                         = 1
read(0, "5", 1)                         = 1
read(0, "4", 1)                         = 1
read(0, "7", 1)                         = 1
read(0, "1", 1)                         = 1
read(0, "\0", 1)                        = 1
alarm(0)                                = 60
read(0, 0xbffddbaf, 1)                  = ? ERESTARTSYS (To
be
restarted)
--- SIGTERM (Terminated) ---
+++ killed by SIGTERM +++

The SIGTERM was from me killing the process. From the alarm
(0) you can
see that the process is just going to sit there trying to
read. As I
said, the man page indicates that the server is supposed to
immediately
create a connection back to the client at the port
specified. Because of
this, rexec doesn't work.

&#137;

Comment 1 Jeff Johnson 1999-03-23 20:20:59 UTC
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 1696 ***