Bug 1725329 - Regression in RPC Behavior with TCP-only portmapper
Summary: Regression in RPC Behavior with TCP-only portmapper
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: libtirpc
Version: 38
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Steve Dickson
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-06-29 16:28 UTC by Rob Riggs
Modified: 2023-05-01 01:28 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: libtirpc-1.3.3-1.rc1.fc38 libtirpc-1.3.3-1.rc1.fc37
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-04-25 01:53:27 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:
rob+redhat: needinfo-


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Patch to treat tcp-only portmappers fairly (870 bytes, patch)
2019-06-29 16:28 UTC, Rob Riggs
no flags Details | Diff

Description Rob Riggs 2019-06-29 16:28:41 UTC
Created attachment 1585880 [details]
Patch to treat tcp-only portmappers fairly

Description of problem:
Code that works in GLIBC's runrpc implementation fails with libtirpc.  libtirpc forces the RPC library to talk to the portmapper via UDP, even when the client specifies TCP.  This breaks existing code which expect the protocol specified to be honored, even when talking to portmapper.

Futher information can be found here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1724865

In this specific case, the error I am hitting is that libsigrok is failing to establish a network connection to an oscilloscope.  This uses VXI protocol.  This works in older versions of Fedora (and in CentOS7 according to a libsigrok maintainer).

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
1.1.4-2rc2

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Connect a Siglent SDS2000X oscilloscope to the network.
2. Attempt to use sigrok-cli to scan the 'scope.
3. sigrok-cli --driver=siglent-sds:conn=vxi/xx.xx.xx.xx --scan

It may be possible to just firewall off UDP to a remote portmapper (port 111) and attempt an NFS connection via TCP to replicate this. I don't have the ability to test this at the moment.

Actual results:

Client fails while attempting to talk to portmapper.

$ sigrok-cli --driver=siglent-sds:conn=vxi/sds2204x --scan
sr: scpi_vxi: Client creation failed for sds2204x

tcpdump shows the rpc client negotiating protocol version with portmapper via TCP, then abruptly switching to UDP.

Expected results:

Client successfully discovers the service via portmapper and connects to the service.

$ sigrok-cli --driver=siglent-sds:conn=vxi/sds2204x --scan
The following devices were found:
siglent-sds - Siglent SDS2204X 1.2.2.2 R19 with 4 channels: CH1 CH2 CH3 CH4


Additional info:
Patch to remove the offending behavior is attached.

Comment 1 Steve Dickson 2019-09-05 13:31:28 UTC
would you mind posting your patch to either libtirpc-devel.net or 
linux-nfs.org or both...

tia!

Comment 2 Ben Cotton 2019-10-31 18:52:22 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 29 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 29 on 2019-11-26.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer
maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a
Fedora 'version' of '29'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 29 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Comment 3 Dan Horák 2019-11-04 11:13:47 UTC
Rob, have you already posted the patch to the upstream mailing lists?

Comment 4 Ben Cotton 2020-02-11 15:44:32 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 32 development cycle.
Changing version to 32.

Comment 5 Fedora Program Management 2021-04-29 15:55:57 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 32 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 32 on 2021-05-25.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer
maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a
Fedora 'version' of '32'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 32 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Comment 6 Ben Cotton 2021-05-25 15:01:51 UTC
Fedora 32 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2021-05-25. Fedora 32 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2023-04-22 14:19:20 UTC
FEDORA-2023-83279212cc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-83279212cc

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2023-04-22 14:19:22 UTC
FEDORA-2023-860fce48bb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-860fce48bb

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2023-04-23 02:32:40 UTC
FEDORA-2023-83279212cc has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-83279212cc`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-83279212cc

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2023-04-23 02:33:28 UTC
FEDORA-2023-860fce48bb has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-860fce48bb`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-860fce48bb

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2023-04-25 01:53:27 UTC
FEDORA-2023-860fce48bb has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2023-05-01 01:28:57 UTC
FEDORA-2023-83279212cc has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.