Description of problem: pppoe-server doesn't calculate the value of AC Cookie correctly on x86_64. As a result, the value of AC Cookie in PADR packet doesn't match the value re-calculated in processPADR(), and it doesn't return a PADS packet to client. In pppoe-server, uint32 is dealt as 32-bit type literally. But, it's defined as unsigned long (64-bit). A fix for this problem is available on upstream. I will attach the backported patch. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): rp-pppoe-3.5-32.1 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. (Server) Setup a pppoe-server with the following configurations. --- /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth1 DEVICE=eth1 ONBOOT=yes BOOTPROTO=none --- --- /etc/ppp/pppoe-server-options # PPP options for the PPPoE server # LIC: GPL require-pap #login lcp-echo-interval 10 lcp-echo-failure 2 --- --- /etc/ppp/pap-secrets # Secrets for authentication using PAP # client server secret IP addresses * * "" * --- 2. (Client) Setup a pppoe client by adsl-setup. # adsl-setup 3. (Server) Run pppoe-server. # pppoe-server -I eth1 -F 4. (Client) Try to connect by adsl-start. # adsl-start Actual results: The pppoe-server does not return PADS. Expected results: The pppoe-server returns PADS. Additional info: It's possible that BZ606403 is same problem, because it is a problem on x8664.
Created attachment 456861 [details] backported patch
Masahiro, could you please verify this patch? Thanks
Hi Ngo, I have already tested the patch on x86_64 and confirmed that PADS was sent to client properly. Regards! Masahiro
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated in the current release, Red Hat is unfortunately unable to address this request at this time. Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to propose this request, if appropriate and relevant, in the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
*** Bug 606403 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
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. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2012-0726.html