RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1462088 - Include UDP port as well to nfs firewalld service
Summary: Include UDP port as well to nfs firewalld service
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: firewalld
Version: 7.4
Hardware: All
OS: All
high
medium
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Eric Garver
QA Contact: Tomas Dolezal
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1459909
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-06-16 07:32 UTC by Soumya Koduri
Modified: 2018-04-10 10:31 UTC (History)
11 users (show)

Fixed In Version: firewalld-0.4.4.4-8.el7
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2018-04-10 10:30:16 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHEA-2018:0702 0 None None None 2018-04-10 10:31:37 UTC

Description Soumya Koduri 2017-06-16 07:32:03 UTC 
Description of problem:

The current nfs firewalld service file (nfs.xml) available addresses only NFSv4 protocol and hence opens up only 2049 TCP port. 

#cat nfs.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<service>
  <short>NFS4</short>
  <description>The NFS4 protocol is used to share files via TCP networking. You will need to have the NFS tools installed and properly configure your NFS server for this option to be useful.</description>
  <port protocol="tcp" port="2049"/>
</service>

But since most of the NFS servers(for eg., glusterfs native NFS server & NFS-Ganesha) support NFSv3 protocol too which need to listen on both TCP and UDP 2049 port, we may need to update this service file to make it generic (i.e, to handle NFSv3 & NFSv4) and include UDP port too.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
firewalld-0.4.4.4-4.el7.noarch

How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:
Comment 2 Steve Whitehouse 2017-07-19 17:01:44 UTC 
UDP is a deprecated transport protocol for NFS with v4 and above. It would probably be a good plan to review the requirements here. With v4.1 (set to be the new default from 7.4) far fewer ports are required than for 4.0 too. We should definitely try and sync up on what is currently done for the firewall though, and how we can keep in sync with NFS's requirements. Perhaps a good discussion point for the next nfs/net meeting.
Comment 3 Tomas Dolezal 2017-07-21 11:51:06 UTC 
It might be worth considering to split nfs service into two regarding the nfs version. else UDP would be opened or additional manual UDP configration needed, where the latter seems worse to me.
Comment 4 Eric Garver 2017-07-24 18:50:51 UTC 
(In reply to Tomas Dolezal from comment #3)
> It might be worth considering to split nfs service into two regarding the
> nfs version. else UDP would be opened or additional manual UDP configration
> needed, where the latter seems worse to me.

This makes sense to me. I don't like opening UDP for the uncommon case. How about we add a nfs3 service definition that opens both TCP/UDP?
Would that work for you Soumya?
Comment 5 Soumya Koduri 2017-07-25 02:49:53 UTC 
(In reply to Eric Garver from comment #4)
> (In reply to Tomas Dolezal from comment #3)
> > It might be worth considering to split nfs service into two regarding the
> > nfs version. else UDP would be opened or additional manual UDP configration
> > needed, where the latter seems worse to me.
> 
> This makes sense to me. I don't like opening UDP for the uncommon case. How
> about we add a nfs3 service definition that opens both TCP/UDP?
> Would that work for you Soumya?

Thanks for your inputs!

yes. That shall surely work. We as RHGS product support NFSv3 server  over both UDP and TCP and hence this requirement. The current firewalld service named "nfs" handles only NFSv4 protocol. A new service "nfs3" definition to have udp port open sounds good to me. Thanks!
Comment 6 Eric Garver 2017-07-26 14:41:47 UTC 
Upstream commit

  a127d697177b ("Add NFSv3 service.")
Comment 11 Tomas Dolezal 2018-01-19 13:47:54 UTC 
There's known issue with runtime rules management if you have both nfs and nfs3 enabled from permanent mode and decide to remove one of the services at runtime.
Workaround is to have correct service enabled from permanent mode and apply it via `firewall-cmd --reload`.

ref bug 1534571 about overlapping ports in service files.
Comment 14 errata-xmlrpc 2018-04-10 10:30:16 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, 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/RHEA-2018:0702
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.