From: "Ken" <ken AT sixtus DOT plus DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
References:
In-Reply-To:
Subject: RE: Portmap RPC registration fails
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 22:41:01 +0100
Message-ID: <000001cd2d63$455bd1b0$d0137510$@sixtus.plus.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

| I have sunrpc 4.0-4 and libtirpc-devel 0.2.1-1. I'm using Windows 7 SP1.
| 
| I compiled and linked the following outline code against tirpc:
| 
|   #define PROG 0x1fffffffL
|   #define VERS 0x2L
| 
|   struct netconfig *nconf = getnetconfigent("tcp");
| 
|   static void dispatch_func(struct svc_req *request, SVCXPRT *xprt)
|     ...
| 
|   svc_handle = svc_tli_create(RPC_ANYFD, nconf, NULL, 0, 0);
| 
|   if (svc_reg(svc_handle, PROG, VERS, dispatch_func, nconf) == 0)
|     ...
| 
| I ran portmap then tried to register with it using the above code.
| However, I get back a zero response from svc_reg indicating failure to
| register.
| 
| This isn't due to my firewall as turning this off doesn't help. I've also
| tried disabling all my network adapters in turn. There's nothing in the
| portmap log. The CygWin NFS server works OK with the portmapper. No other
| portmapper is running. rpcinfo gives:
| 
|   100000    2   tcp    111
|   100000    2   udp    111

Further to this post... With a struggle I built libtirpc.a and traced
execution. Ultimately this is failing in clnt_vc.c. The following call in
clnt_vc_create:

  connect(fd, (struct sockaddr *)raddr->buf, raddr->len)

supplies an IPV6 address with hex values:

  006F 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 3300

The codes's own diagnostics report:

  Got ua [::1.0.111]
  netbuf len = 28, maxlen = 28
  Address is 23.0.0.111.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.0.0.
  rpcbind clnt interface: RPC: Remote system error - Connection refused

The above doesn't look like a plausible IPV6 address. I have IPV6 enabled on
my network adapter. Is it possible that portmap isn't compatible with IPV6?
That would explain why older code (such as CygWin NFS Server - IPV4) is able
to register with portmap.


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple