dhcp-all-interfaces causes syslog spam

Bug #1270018 reported by Robert Collins
32
This bug affects 7 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
tripleo
Expired
Undecided
Unassigned
network-manager (Ubuntu)
Confirmed
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

because it adds everything :/
Jan 17 02:37:18 ci-overcloud-notcompute-3st54nnok5p5 dhclient: send_packet: No such device or address
Jan 17 02:37:18 ci-overcloud-notcompute-3st54nnok5p5 dhclient: dhclient.c:1996: Failed to send 300 byte long packet over br-tun interface.
Jan 17 02:37:20 ci-overcloud-notcompute-3st54nnok5p5 dhclient: DHCPDISCOVER on eth0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 11 (xid=0x1073ecde)
Jan 17 02:37:28 ci-overcloud-notcompute-3st54nnok5p5 dhclient: DHCPDISCOVER on vlan25 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 17 (xid=0x19abe7a9)
Jan 17 02:37:30 ci-overcloud-notcompute-3st54nnok5p5 dhclient: DHCPDISCOVER on br-tun to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 6 (xid=0x4ddfb7de)
Jan 17 02:37:30 ci-overcloud-notcompute-3st54nnok5p5 dhclient: send_packet: No such device or address
Jan 17 02:37:30 ci-overcloud-notcompute-3st54nnok5p5 dhclient: dhclient.c:1996: Failed to send 300 byte long packet over br-tun interface.
Jan 17 02:37:31 ci-overcloud-notcompute-3st54nnok5p5 dhclient: DHCPDISCOVER on eth0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 12 (xid=0x1073ecde)
Jan 17 02:37:32 ci-overcloud-notcompute-3st54nnok5p5 dhclient: DHCPDISCOVER on ovs-system to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 14 (xid=0x5b31271c)
Jan 17 02:37:36 ci-overcloud-notcompute-3st54nnok5p5 dhclient: No DHCPOFFERS received.
Jan 17 02:37:36 ci-overcloud-notcompute-3st54nnok5p5 dhclient: No working leases in persistent database - sleeping.
Jan 17 02:37:43 ci-overcloud-notcompute-3st54nnok5p5 dhclient: DHCPDISCOVER on eth0 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 15 (xid=0x1073ecde)
Jan 17 02:37:45 ci-overcloud-notcompute-3st54nnok5p5 dhclient: DHCPDISCOVER on vlan25 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 21 (xid=0x19abe7a9)
Jan 17 02:37:46 ci-overcloud-notcompute-3st54nnok5p5 dhclient: DHCPDISCOVER on ovs-system to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 8 (xid=0x5b31271c)

Revision history for this message
Dan Prince (dan-prince) wrote :

I think this might be a dup of: 1239479.

Also, see here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/68265/

Revision history for this message
Vasyl Khalak (khalak) wrote :

With all due respect, it is Bug # 1470997 which is a duplicate of this, even if [dhcp-all-interfaces] does not add 'everything' (that is, if it is limited to listening to one interface, and that 'enp0s20u1' interface does not exist, my logs):

Dec 14 16:22:50 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: DHCPDISCOVER on enp0s20u1 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 8 (xid=0x1177cf18)
Dec 14 16:22:50 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: send_packet: No such device or address
Dec 14 16:22:50 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: dhclient.c:2396: Failed to send 300 byte long packet over enp0s20u1 interface.
Dec 14 16:22:58 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: DHCPDISCOVER on enp0s20u1 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 8 (xid=0x1177cf18)
Dec 14 16:22:58 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: send_packet: No such device or address
Dec 14 16:22:58 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: dhclient.c:2396: Failed to send 300 byte long packet over enp0s20u1 interface.
Dec 14 16:23:06 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: DHCPDISCOVER on enp0s20u1 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 8 (xid=0x1177cf18)
Dec 14 16:23:06 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: send_packet: No such device or address
Dec 14 16:23:06 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: dhclient.c:2396: Failed to send 300 byte long packet over enp0s20u1 interface.
Dec 14 16:23:14 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: DHCPDISCOVER on enp0s20u1 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 14 (xid=0x1177cf18)
Dec 14 16:23:14 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: send_packet: No such device or address
Dec 14 16:23:14 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: dhclient.c:2396: Failed to send 300 byte long packet over enp0s20u1 interface.
Dec 14 16:23:28 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: DHCPDISCOVER on enp0s20u1 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 12 (xid=0x1177cf18)
Dec 14 16:23:28 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: send_packet: No such device or address
Dec 14 16:23:28 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: dhclient.c:2396: Failed to send 300 byte long packet over enp0s20u1 interface.
Dec 14 16:23:40 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: DHCPDISCOVER on enp0s20u1 to 255.255.255.255 port 67 interval 11 (xid=0x1177cf18)
Dec 14 16:23:40 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: send_packet: No such device or address
Dec 14 16:23:40 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: dhclient.c:2396: Failed to send 300 byte long packet over enp0s20u1 interface.
Dec 14 16:23:51 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: No DHCPOFFERS received.
Dec 14 16:23:51 localhost.localdomain dhclient[12096]: No working leases in persistent database - sleeping.

Vasyl Khalak (khalak)
Changed in tripleo:
status: Triaged → Confirmed
Vasyl Khalak (khalak)
Changed in network-manager (Ubuntu):
status: New → Confirmed
Revision history for this message
Brent Eagles (beagles) wrote :

Knocking down to Medium importance. The patch Dan supplied mitigates the problem by omitting generated interfaces so that knocks the noise level down a bit. A fix is probably a little dicy and seems like it should be tied to the node's role/configured services, hardware configuration, etc. etc.

I'm adding to https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tripleo-bug-cleanup-2016 to bring up when we get together to discuss the longstanding bugs.

Changed in tripleo:
importance: High → Medium
Revision history for this message
Emilien Macchi (emilienm) wrote : Cleanup EOL bug report

This is an automated cleanup. This bug report has been closed because it
is older than 18 months and there is no open code change to fix this.
After this time it is unlikely that the circumstances which lead to
the observed issue can be reproduced.

If you can reproduce the bug, please:
* reopen the bug report (set to status "New")
* AND add the detailed steps to reproduce the issue (if applicable)
* AND leave a comment "CONFIRMED FOR: <RELEASE_NAME>"
  Only still supported release names are valid (LIBERTY, MITAKA, NEWTON, OCATA, PIKE, PIKE).
  Valid example: CONFIRMED FOR: LIBERTY

Changed in tripleo:
importance: Medium → Undecided
status: Confirmed → Expired
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Duplicates of this bug

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.