Bug 456840 - Remote printers on same subnet are hard to find
Summary: Remote printers on same subnet are hard to find
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: system-config-firewall
Version: 9
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
low
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Thomas Woerner
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-07-28 01:18 UTC by Christopher Beland
Modified: 2009-07-14 16:39 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-07-14 16:39:52 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
What I get when I specify the hostname as "free-spin" (16.42 KB, text/plain)
2008-07-28 19:10 UTC, Christopher Beland
no flags Details

Description Christopher Beland 2008-07-28 01:18:15 UTC
I have two Fedora 9 computers called "free-spin" and "diet-anarchy". free-spin
has a printer attached to it via a USB cable.  I set it up in
system-config-printer on free-spin and checked "Share published printers
connected to this system" and "Allow printing from the Internet".

When open system-config-printer on diet-anarchy, I don't see this printer in the
tree under "Remote printers" even though I have "Show printers shared by other
systems" checked.  I'm pretty sure that when I was using Fedora 8 on
diet-anarchy and Fedora 9 on free-spin, this printer would show up on
diet-anarchy automatically.

I also have Mac laptop, and when I connect it to the local subnet, it
automatically finds the printer on free-spin with no problems.  That's what
should happen.  Currently with Fedora 9, I have to know both the IP address of
the machine the printer is connected to, and the protocol it is using.  That's
well beyond the capabilities of a lot of home users.

I have this problem whether or not the firewalls on both free-spin and
diet-anarchy are disabled.

This is with system-config-printer-0.7.82.5-1.fc9 and cups-1.3.7-8.fc9.

Comment 1 Tim Waugh 2008-07-28 12:12:43 UTC
Please use the troubleshooter to find out whether any commonly known problem is
causing this.  From system-config-printer, select Help->Troubleshoot from the
menu bar.

If you are given the opportunity to save a troubleshoot.txt file, please attach
that file here.

Comment 2 Christopher Beland 2008-07-28 19:10:54 UTC
Created attachment 312810 [details]
What I get when I specify the hostname as "free-spin"

I tried the troubleshooter.  I selected "not listed" and then it asked me for
the name and IP address of the printer.  Since the use case I'm interested in
is where the user does not know the IP address, I left those fields blank. 
This resulted in the following debugging information:

Page 1 (Scheduler not running?):
{'cups_connection_failure': False}
Page 2 (Choose printer):
{'cups_dests_available': [], 'cups_queue_listed': False}
Page 3 (Local or remote?):
{'printer_is_remote': True}
Page 4 (Remote address):
{'remote_server_ip_address': '', 'remote_server_name': ''}
Page 5 (Check network server sanity):
{'remote_server_name_resolves': False, 'remote_server_try_connect': ''}

If I cheat a bit and tell it that the name of the computer is free-spin, I get
the attached troubleshoot.txt.

Comment 3 Tim Waugh 2008-07-29 10:24:16 UTC
The attachment was what I needed.  From it I can see:

* free-spin is on the same subnet as you
* its printer, trip, is marked as shared

So the problem is one of these:

* free-spin is not sending browse packets
* the client is not receiving browse packets

What does running 'tcpdump udp port ipp or icmp' for a minute or two on the
client show?

Comment 4 Christopher Beland 2008-07-29 14:08:11 UTC
(9:40 ~) root@diet-anarchy: tcpdump udp port ipp or icmp
tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
listening on eth0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
09:41:15.696122 IP fs.ipp > 192.168.2.255.ipp: UDP, length 196
09:41:46.694670 IP fs.ipp > 192.168.2.255.ipp: UDP, length 196
09:42:17.693795 IP fs.ipp > 192.168.2.255.ipp: UDP, length 196
09:42:48.692375 IP fs.ipp > 192.168.2.255.ipp: UDP, length 196

(fs being an alias for free-spin)

Comment 5 Tim Waugh 2008-07-29 14:13:43 UTC
1. What does 'iptables -n -L' say, as root, on diet-anarchy?
2. What does 'cupsctl' say, as root, on diet-anarchy?

Comment 6 Christopher Beland 2008-07-29 15:23:23 UTC
(11:21 ~) root@diet-anarchy: iptables -n -L
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT)
target     prot opt source               destination         
ACCEPT     all  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           state
RELATED,ESTABLISHED 
ACCEPT     icmp --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           
ACCEPT     all  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           
ACCEPT     tcp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           state NEW tcp dpt:22 
ACCEPT     tcp  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           state NEW tcp dpt:22 
REJECT     all  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           reject-with
icmp-host-prohibited 

Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT)
target     prot opt source               destination         
REJECT     all  --  0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0           reject-with
icmp-host-prohibited 

Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT)
target     prot opt source               destination         
                                                                               
(11:21 ~) root@diet-anarchy: cupsctl
MaxLogSize=0
SystemGroup=sys root
DefaultAuthType=Basic
_debug_logging=0
_remote_admin=0
_remote_any=0
_remote_printers=1
_share_printers=0
_user_cancel_any=0


Comment 7 Tim Waugh 2008-07-29 15:35:02 UTC
That *looks* like your firewall is blocking the packets.  Can you show me the
output of 'iptables -v -n -L' just to be sure?

Comment 8 Christopher Beland 2008-07-29 16:04:37 UTC
(11:22 ~) root@diet-anarchy: iptables -v -n -L
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination
        
 346K  425M ACCEPT     all  --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0  
        state RELATED,ESTABLISHED 
   27  2160 ACCEPT     icmp --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0  
        
 2944  206K ACCEPT     all  --  lo     *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0  
        
    0     0 ACCEPT     tcp  --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0  
        state NEW tcp dpt:22 
    0     0 ACCEPT     tcp  --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0  
        state NEW tcp dpt:22 
 3400  712K REJECT     all  --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0  
        reject-with icmp-host-prohibited 

Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT 0 packets, 0 bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination
        
    0     0 REJECT     all  --  *      *       0.0.0.0/0            0.0.0.0/0  
        reject-with icmp-host-prohibited 

Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT 241K packets, 21M bytes)
 pkts bytes target     prot opt in     out     source               destination  

Comment 9 Tim Waugh 2008-07-29 16:13:42 UTC
Yes, your firewall is blocking the packets.

Since you say:
> I have this problem whether or not the firewalls on
> both free-spin and diet-anarchy are disabled.

I will reassign this to the configuration tool for the firewall.

Comment 10 Christopher Beland 2008-07-29 17:35:19 UTC
Ah, you're right.  I can get the printer to show up on its own if I drop the
firewall on diet-anarchy, but I have to wait a few minutes before starting
system-config-printer.  Sneaky!

Comment 11 Thomas Woerner 2008-07-30 10:00:08 UTC
Please mark "Network Printing Client (IPP)" as trusted in the trusted services
list in system-config-firewall. This is solving your problem.

Comment 12 Christopher Beland 2008-07-31 16:15:29 UTC
If I do that, I can see the remote printer when system-config-printer starts up.
 But it doesn't solve the usability problem.  Perhaps some sort of notification
in the system-config-printer GUI that the firewall is blinding the machine to
shared printers would be an appropriate fix.

Comment 13 Tim Waugh 2008-07-31 16:25:11 UTC
Yes.  Unfortunately that is not currently possible due to architectural issues
(see bug #440469).

Comment 14 Bug Zapper 2009-06-10 02:16:03 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 9 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 9.  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 WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '9'.

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 prior to Fedora 9's end of life.

Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 9 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 please change the 'version' of this 
bug to the applicable version.  If you are unable to change the version, 
please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.

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.

The process we are following is described here: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Comment 15 Jens Knutson 2009-07-09 20:58:45 UTC
"Perhaps some sort of notification in the system-config-printer GUI that the firewall is blinding the machine to shared printers would be an appropriate fix."

Considering the last few comments on bug #440469, how about just setting the IPP client port to be a "trusted service" by default?

Comment 16 Bug Zapper 2009-07-14 16:39:52 UTC
Fedora 9 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-07-10. Fedora 9 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.

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


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