Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 58891

Summary:	Problems with a host identification for rsync clients
Product:	[Retired] Red Hat Linux	Reporter:	Michal Jaegermann <michal>
Component:	rsync	Assignee:	Bill Nottingham <notting>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Aaron Brown <abrown>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	7.2	CC:	rvokal
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:	2002-01-27 16:32:22 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Michal Jaegermann 2002-01-26 22:31:58 UTC

Description of Problem:

With the current rsync (and version 2.5.1 too) I run into the following:

when trying to connect to a local rsync server (responds to some chosen
addresses) I see the following:

rsync on 7.2.updates from unknown (209.xxx.xxx.xxx)

The ip number in question is really a number of my firewall and does
resolve correctly, i.e. 'dig -x ....' and 'dig (name)' provide really
the same information.

It is getting worse.  When connecting from a client which has its own
entry in /etc/hosts on a server I get:

rsync: reverse name lookup mismatch on fd0 - spoofed address?

and a connection is rejected.

Replacing the routine which does name checks with one from rsync-2.3.3
restores sanity and my connections are no longer from "unknown" and
spoofing is not suggested.  Maybe checks are more permissive but otherwise
things are not workable.

This bug could be really in libresolv, or somewhere else, and the system
running rsync server is no longer any "official release" of anything
(say that somewhat close to Red Hat 6.2), so this may not happen somewhere
else, but it is worth checking.

Comment 1 Bill Nottingham 2002-01-27 06:18:16 UTC

Current == current 7.2, or current *errata* 7.2?

Comment 2 Michal Jaegermann 2002-01-27 16:00:02 UTC

Sorry.  Tried with current from errata but the code in question, i.e.
'client_name()' in socket.c, did not change even in original sources through
quite a few versions.   I did not check when change occured but 'client_name()'
from rsync-2.3.3, used as a replacement with all other code intact,
worksforme.

Comment 3 Bill Nottingham 2002-01-27 16:32:16 UTC

The reason I ask is because the ipv6 patch in the original 7.2 rsync broke some
host resolution code; this was changed in 2.4.6-8.

Comment 4 Michal Jaegermann 2002-01-28 04:23:33 UTC

Bill, you are right.  Properly recompiled rsync-2.4.6-0.6 and also
rsync-2.4.6-8 does not have name resolution troubles.  Between these,
security patches and sources from rsync.samba.org I had to mess up something.
Sorry for the false alarm.