|Summary:||Bad dhcpd.conf file - but no error msg and dhcpd starts anyway|
|Product:||[Retired] Red Hat Linux||Reporter:||RLX Technologies <linux-dev>|
|Component:||dhcp||Assignee:||Daniel Walsh <dwalsh>|
|Status:||CLOSED NOTABUG||QA Contact:|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2002-12-16 16:37:45 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description RLX Technologies 2002-12-03 00:02:44 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020830 Description of problem: On previous versions of DHCP (2.0pl5), we would see the error msg "No subnet declaration for eth?" if the dhcpd.conf was wrong (i.e. missing subnet data for the given interface). With the DHCP on 8.0 (3.0pl1) we see no error and dhcpd starts when it should not ? Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Comment out the subnet statement for one of the interfaces 2. service dhcpd restart 3. No error msg and ps -ef shows dhcpd running on the bogus interface Actual Results: dhcpd runs and gives no error msg as that seen when using 2.0pl5. Expected Results: dhcpd should refuse to run and give error msg "No subnet declaration for eth?". Additional info: I am not a frequent user of dhcpd but this issue came up in the testing group and was a "surprise" to the person doing the testing of 8.0.
Comment 1 Daniel Walsh 2002-12-05 14:26:56 UTC
Did it report errors in the syslog. I am new to this code and quickly reading through the code shows that it should report the missing subnet in the syslog file. Dan
Comment 2 RLX Technologies 2002-12-10 23:48:56 UTC
Yes, it does report an error in the syslog. I see "No subnet declaration for eth0" and other very good error msgs. We just expected this case to cause a failure and stop dhcpd from starting. If this is "Working As Designed", then I will inform the testing group. What do you think ? By the way, sorry for the delay in the reply - I was busy on a few other issues. Thanks ...
Comment 3 Daniel Walsh 2002-12-16 16:37:45 UTC
Looks like it is by design, since there is a comment before the syslog message saying ignore it. Thanks Dan
Comment 4 RLX Technologies 2002-12-16 17:29:26 UTC
Thanks for the info/help ...