touch-packages team mailing list archive

Thread
Date

[Bug 1187177] Re: iptables calls setsockopt(2) incorrectly, fails when it should not

To: touch-packages@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Rolf Leggewie <1187177@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 06:08:20 -0000
Reply-to: Bug 1187177 <1187177@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

raring has seen the end of its life and is no longer receiving any
updates. Marking the raring task for this ticket as "Won't Fix".

** Changed in: iptables (Ubuntu Raring)
       Status: Triaged => Won't Fix

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to iptables in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1187177

Title:
  iptables calls setsockopt(2) incorrectly, fails when it should not

Status in iptables package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in iptables source package in Lucid:
  Triaged
Status in iptables source package in Precise:
  Triaged
Status in iptables source package in Quantal:
  Won't Fix
Status in iptables source package in Raring:
  Won't Fix
Status in iptables package in Debian:
  Fix Released

Bug description:
  Since time immemorial, iptables has called setsockopt() and treated any                       
  -1 return value as fatal.  Any system call can return EAGAIN or                               
  EINPROGRESS (depending on the origins of the API), and good coding                            
  practice requires checking for that and retrying or otherwise handling                        
  it.                                                                                           
                                                                                                
  In the case of iptables, if multiple processes are calling iptables                           
  concurrently, then it is likely that one of them will fail.  I have seen                      
  this with xen, as well as certain firewall configurations where the                           
  firewall rules are added as triggered by interfaces being discovered and                      
  configured.                                                                                   
                                                                                                
  The attached patch fixes the issue.                                                           
  lamont

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/iptables/+bug/1187177/+subscriptions