Opened 11 years ago

Last modified 6 years ago

#161 accepted Bug / Defect

GET INST BY VIRT error is too obscure quiet

Reported by: gcc Owned by: Samuli Seppänen
Priority: major Milestone: release 2.4
Component: Generic / unclassified Version: OpenVPN 2.0.x (Community Ed)
Severity: Not set (select this one, unless your'e a OpenVPN developer) Keywords:


This error means that your packets are being dropped:

Tue Sep 20 12:47:53 2011 us=236940 GET INST BY VIRT: [failed]

Unfortunately it's very easy to miss. It's not visible at debug level 6 and it's not obvious at all. Perhaps it could be made more severe, and say something like:

"No internal route (iroute) to, dropping packet, see"

Cheers, Chris.

Change History (5)

comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by Samuli Seppänen

Agreed, does the error message mean "GET INST[ANCE] BY VIRT[UAL] [SOMETHING]"? Very obscure in my opinion, and worth fixing.

According to the FAQ entry both multi errors are triggered by the same problem (missing iroute), so the suggested error message is probably correct.

comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by Gert Döring

Milestone: release 2.3.3
Owner: set to Samuli Seppänen
Status: newassigned

I wonder why this is not triggering the (much more visible)

Jan 8 21:44:42 server ovpn-tun99[909]: client-xx/80.145.x.x MULTI: bad source address from client [fe80::7498:59f4:60a0:eba1], packet dropped

message... maybe this was already rewritten for 2.2 to make it more easily understandable?

So what we need to do is "see what error message is triggered in the iroute scenario on 2.3.2", and if it's not the MULTI message, fix it for 2.3.3 - and otherwise, close it.

Samuli, can you test? I'll fix, if needed.

comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by Gert Döring

Milestone: release 2.3.3release 2.4

Did some staring-on-code today, this is actually not quite the same as"MULTI: bad source address" - this code (multi.c, multi_get_instance_by_virtual_addr()) can be called for "tun->client", "client->tun", and "client->client", checking source address (in which case a failure to match will will print the "MULTI: bad source" message), or dest address, respectively.

Samuli, could you update the FAQ entry on this? This is not fully correct today, if it claims "it's the same thing".

Making this message more prominent is actually not something we should do lightly - it will be seen quite frequently if a client is not connected, and someone sends packets there, like "a port scan coming from the Internet" (not unusual) we'll flood the server logs. Worse, this message is actually triggered for every packet coming *from* a client that is not going to a different client but to the fallback = the tun interface.

One *could* add (like it's done for "MULTI: bad source") a separate message for the tun->client case ("MULTI: no instance found for IP ...."), but even then it should not get a higher verbosity level, for the reasons mentioned. This would be something for 2.4, if at all.

What we could do for 2.3.3 is to reword the message - but then, with the appropriate FAQ entry, it actually is quite clear. So I'd prefer to update the FAQ, and not change the code here.

comment:4 Changed 8 years ago by Samuli Seppänen

Status: assignedaccepted

comment:5 Changed 6 years ago by Samuli Seppänen

Three years later... cron2: does your analysis still hold? The FAQ is now user-editable, so perhaps you would be the more correct person to edit the item in question?

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.