pfSense bugtracker: Issueshttps://redmine.pfsense.org/https://redmine.pfsense.org/favicon.ico?16780521162024-03-10T23:09:39ZpfSense bugtracker
Redmine pfSense - Bug #15328 (New): Kea DHCP corrupts existing leases when a new DHCP pool is addedhttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/153282024-03-10T23:09:39ZTom Lane
<p>I set up a couple of DHCP pools for VLANs on a new Netgate 4200 (running pfsense+ 23.09.1), which is replacing an EdgeRouter-X that had been serving DHCP to the same clients. That went fine, and I watched several of the existing VLAN clients re-acquire their existing addresses from the new server. Then I added another DHCP pool attached directly to the PORT2LAN interface. That completely confused matters for existing leases: the server actively rejected attempts to renew those leases and gave out addresses of its own choosing. Now I am seeing two different entries in the DHCP Leases status page for the same MAC address, which surely should not happen. Digging in the DHCP log entries, it looks like when the server was restarted because of the pool addition, all the lease reloads failed with complaints like</p>
<p><code>Mar 10 16:09:18 kea-dhcp4 39285 WARN [kea-dhcp4.dhcpsrv.0x401b3c12000] DHCPSRV_LEASE_SANITY_FAIL The lease 10.0.20.41 with subnet-id 2 failed subnet-id checks (the lease should have subnet-id 3).<br /></code><br />10.0.20.41 is still shown (though as "down") in the Leases page, but there's also an entry for that client with its forcibly-assigned new IP address.</p>
<p>This isn't a fatal problem, assuming that the server manages to keep re-issuing these newly-chosen addresses, but it's mildly annoying. I'm not sure if there will be any outright conflicts as the remaining clients try to renew their leases.</p> pfSense Packages - Bug #15172 (New): Tailscale interface goes down without reasonhttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/151722024-01-18T01:47:04ZCarlos Montalvo J.
<p>Tailscale on pfSense 2.7.2-RELEASE (tailscale package v0.1.4 [tailscale-1.54.0])</p>
<p>On a VM (Proxmox v8.x (lastest with OpenVSwitch)) VMXNET interfaces.<br />Service Watchdog should restart the VPN, but it doesn't... (Does not look at the interface status)<br /><img src="https://redmine.pfsense.org/attachments/download/5855/clipboard-202401172043-aqnjt.png" title="Kernel logs" alt="Kernel logs" /><br /><img src="https://redmine.pfsense.org/attachments/download/5857/clipboard-202401172044-hk5yq.png" title="Service watchdog config" alt="Service watchdog config" /></p> pfSense Packages - Bug #15100 (New): Tailscale IPv6 Exit Node uses first LAN interface when WAN i...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/151002023-12-17T03:04:21ZKris Phillips
<p>When Tailscale on pfSense Plus is being used as an exit node for IPv6 connectivity and the WAN interface is set to "Only request an IPv6 prefix, do not request an IPv6 address", it will use the first sequential LAN interface's IPv6 address for outbound connectivity instead. We should probably add an option to Tailscale to select which interface for WAN connectivity is used for the NAT address for IPv4 and IPv6 for outbound connectivity, because this resulted in my internal, secure work VLAN address being used when I had routing policies in Tailscale to only allow access to my home VLAN instead (due to the fact that the work VLAN was the first sequential LAN). Not being able to choose the interface that is used for NAT on the exit node could lead to certain situations where access to resources that shouldn't be is possible under certain circumstances.</p> pfSense - Bug #15098 (New): Wireguard crashes on boot if PPPoE is the default gatewayhttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/150982023-12-15T20:06:02ZOskar Stroka
<p>This only seems to happen after a fresh boot, and only if any PPPoE connection is the default gateway. <br />Even the service watchdog can't bring wireguard back up. <br />The workaround is to go to "Status" - "Interfaces", disconnect the PPPoE line and enable it again. <br />After that wireguard will start without a problem.<br />I've only noticed this issue after moving to newer / better hardware.</p> pfSense - Bug #15084 (New): Upgrading an EFI system installed to ZFS mirror does not upgrade EFI ...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/150842023-12-11T16:56:18ZJim Pingle
<p>When an EFI system installed to a ZFS mirror is upgraded, the EFI loader is only updated on the first disk of the mirror (<code>/dev/gpt/efiboot0</code>).</p>
<p>If the system has EFI filesystems on the additional disks, they are not touched during upgrade.</p>
<p>Can be worked around by manually mounting the additional EFI partitions and copying the files.</p>
<p>For example, to update the loader on the second disk:</p>
<pre><code class="shell syntaxhl"><span class="c"># mount -t msdosfs /dev/gpt/efiboot1 /mnt/</span>
<span class="c"># cp -R /boot/efi/ /mnt</span>
<span class="c"># umount /mnt</span>
</code></pre>
<p>Note that systems may or may not actually have a proper EFI filesystem on the additional disks. See <a class="issue tracker-1 status-1 priority-5 priority-high4" title="Bug: Installing to ZFS mirror does not format or populate EFI partition on additional disks (New)" href="https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/15083">#15083</a></p>
<p>Marked as Plus 24.03/CE 2.8.0 but if it can be fixed in the pfSense-boot package the fix could be picked back to 23.09.1/2.7.2.</p> pfSense - Bug #15082 (New): Upgrade fails due to unmounted EFI filesystemhttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/150822023-12-11T14:10:15ZJim Pingle
<p>This may be related to <a class="issue tracker-1 status-1 priority-4 priority-default" title="Bug: Upgrade fails due to undersized EFI filesystem (New)" href="https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/15081">#15081</a> but it's not definite.</p>
<p>Some upgrades have failed in pfSense-boot if the EFI partition is not manually mounted first.</p>
<p>There are several reports of this where simply manually mounting the EFI partition before starting the upgrade allows it to complete. See <a class="external" href="https://www.reddit.com/r/PFSENSE/comments/18d887u/netgate_releases_pfsense_plus_software_version/kcjcktm/">https://www.reddit.com/r/PFSENSE/comments/18d887u/netgate_releases_pfsense_plus_software_version/kcjcktm/</a> for example.</p>
<p>Marked as Plus 24.03/CE 2.8.0 but if it can be fixed in the pfSense-boot package the fix could be picked back to 23.09.1/2.7.2.</p> pfSense - Bug #15081 (New): Upgrade fails due to undersized EFI filesystemhttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/150812023-12-11T14:01:54ZJim Pingle
<p>Some installations as recent as Plus 22.01 / CE 2.6.0 have EFI partitions that were created and/or populated by the old EFIFAT image method. This means that while the EFI <em>partition</em> is 200M, the EFI <em>filesystem</em> is only around 700KB. As a result, these installations are unable to upgrade to recent versions successfully as the loader cannot be updated.</p>
<p>This can be worked around by reformatting the EFI partition directly and copying the appropriate files back into place, as described in this forum post: <a class="external" href="https://forum.netgate.com/post/1140955">https://forum.netgate.com/post/1140955</a></p>
<pre><code class="shell syntaxhl"><span class="c"># mkdir -p /boot/efi</span>
<span class="c"># mount_msdosfs /dev/msdosfs/EFISYS /boot/efi</span>
<span class="c"># mkdir -p /tmp/efitmp</span>
<span class="c"># cp -Rp /boot/efi/* /tmp/efitmp</span>
<span class="c"># umount /boot/efi</span>
<span class="c"># newfs_msdos -F 32 -c 1 -L EFISYS /dev/msdosfs/EFISYS</span>
<span class="c"># mount_msdosfs /dev/msdosfs/EFISYS /boot/efi</span>
<span class="c"># cp -Rp /tmp/efitmp/* /boot/efi/</span>
</code></pre>
<p>There are some potential complications there. For example, the EFI filesystem may not be labeled that way, it could be <code>/dev/gpt/EFISYS</code> or it may have no label at all.</p>
<p>Marked as Plus 24.03/CE 2.8.0 but if it can be fixed in the pfSense-boot package the fix could be picked back to 23.09.1/2.7.2.</p> pfSense - Bug #14983 (New): Upgrade can fail when unexpected EFI partitions are present.https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/149832023-11-14T15:49:22ZSteve Wheeler
<p>pfSense-upgrade can fail when the pfSense-boot post install script tries to update the bot loader if the first EFI partition is not on the boot drive.</p>
<p>For example if the main boot drive is not installed as UEFI and the installation media is still present. The script tries and fails to update the wrong drive aborting the upgrade:</p>
<pre>
Number of packages to be reinstalled: 1
[1/1] Reinstalling pfSense-boot-23.09...
[1/1] Extracting pfSense-boot-23.09: .......... done
mount_msdosfs: /dev/msdosfs/EFISYS: Read-only file system
pkg-static: POST-INSTALL script failed
failed.
__RC=1 __REBOOT_AFTER=10
</pre> pfSense - Bug #14613 (New): Incorrect wireguard control panel status managementhttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/146132023-07-26T14:59:29Zhao zhang
<p><img src="https://redmine.pfsense.org/attachments/download/5201/clipboard-202307262256-rlh8k.png" alt="" /><br />Wireguard can still be clicked on to start while in the boot state and is unresponsive when clicked on, making wireguard uncontrollable.<br />pfsense2.7<br />pfSense-pkg-WireGuard 0.2.0_2</p> pfSense - Bug #14604 (New): Bugs in dhclient implementation according to RFC 2131https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/146042023-07-23T14:11:19ZNazar Mokrynskyi
<p>I had issues with one of the ISPs on pfSense and after talking to their tech support and observing what is happening I believe there are bugs in dhclient used by pfSense.<br />It is likely an upstream issue, but I don't use FreeBSD, so I report it here.<br />This is what triggers <a class="external" href="https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/14237">https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/14237</a> (which I believe is a buggy gateway groups implementation in pfSense and is a distinct issue, this one is just one way to trigger it, but maybe not the only one).</p>
<p>Dump of communication between pfSense and DHCP server of ISP is also attached.<br />The issue happened on 2.6.x and still happens on 2.7.0 that I'm currently running.</p>
<p>Below is basically an English translation of the response from IPS support representative.</p>
<p>The first thing that is believed to be handling DHCPDISCOVER. According to RFC 2131:<br /> The client begins in INIT state and forms a DHCPDISCOVER message.<br /> The client SHOULD wait a random time between one and ten seconds to<br /> desynchronize the use of DHCP at startup.</p>
<p>So client must wait for DHCPOFFER up to 10 seconds. During this time client can receive answers from multiple DHCP servers and pick settings it prefers.</p>
<p>The other issue is that according to RFC 2131 Unicast request Request Renew must be done between T1 and T2. Time approximately equal tothe lease time<br />(with slight random offset) - T1 timer. pfSense's dhclient only uses T2 (0.85*lease time), this is not quite correct, request according to T2 timer is usually<br />done in case first request to extend lease failed (depends on implementation and DHCP client settings). According to RFC after T2 time client must switch to<br />REBINDING and make boardcast request, which is what happened. If cient doesn't send request/doesn't receive response within lease time then settings must be<br />cleared and procedure of obtaining IP address start over.<br />Current lease time is 10 minutes (600 seconds).<br />Separately sometimes dhclient doesn't send DHCPREQUEST within lease time, for instance record <a class="issue tracker-4 status-5 priority-4 priority-default closed" title="Todo: PPTP users integration with user manager (Closed)" href="https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/34">#34</a> and 37, between then there was more than 600 seconds and<br />procedure to get IP address started over, which is when Internet access was temporarily lost.</p> pfSense Packages - Bug #14556 (New): Tailscale dropping routes from FIBhttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/145562023-07-07T14:28:17ZChris Linstruth
<p>Installation has several tailscale nodes. The problematic node is a 6100. Some of the other nodes are 2100s.</p>
<p>At some point in the past, it started malfunctioning on one of the nodes whenever specific types of changes are made.</p>
<ul>
<li>Add or remove a node with routed subnets, all routes drop. Can successfully add/remove nodes without routes. This is on the tailscale machine config.</li>
<li>Simply marking a route as active or inactive (tailscale edit route settings) will also trigger it.</li>
</ul>
<p>It occurs occasionally without any changes being made.<br />Bounce the tailscale process on that 6100 node and they return.<br />The routes just drop from the kernel FIB.<br />Only on the one node.</p>
<p>There is essentially nothing logged (DEBUG logging level) regarding the actions of the tailscale routing protocol. Nor is there anything of troubleshooting value on the tailscale cloud site.</p>
<p>All IPv4 tailscale routes drop including host routes. It is probably noteworthy that the IPv6 /48 is still in the table and tailscaled is still running.</p>
<p>Another possibly interesting note is the routes advertised by the 6100 that drops the routes remain advertised into the tailnet and present on the other nodes.</p>
<p>The nodes are still showing as “idle” so tailscale is still “up.”</p>
<p>Attempted to duplicate this by adding a tailnet to 4 pfSense nodes with routes and two devices without routes. It could not be made to misbehave.</p> pfSense Packages - Feature #13096 (Feedback): Improve robustness of Snort Rules Update Log size l...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/130962022-04-25T09:47:09ZBill Meeks
<p>Change the code for truncating the Snort Rules Update Log file when it exceeds the maximum configured size to be more robust by dropping the use of <em>unlink()</em> and use the method used in the Suricata package instead.</p> pfSense Packages - Bug #13095 (Feedback): Snort VRT change in Shared Object Rules path name resul...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/130952022-04-25T09:43:25ZBill Meeks
<p>Apparently the Snort Vulnerability Research Team recently altered part of the path name inside the Snort Rules Update archive. This results in failure of the Snort package code to properly extract and copy the Shared Object (SO) rules when performing the periodic rules update. A portion of the long directory path in the archive was changed from "x86_64" to "x86-64" (replaced the underscore with a dash).</p> pfSense Packages - Bug #12979 (Pull Request Review): Snort Rules Update Process Using Deprecated ...https://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/129792022-03-23T14:23:01ZBill Meeks
<p>Beginning around the first of March 2022, the Snort rules update package from the Snort VRT changed the subdirectory name for the precompiled Shared Object (SO) rules, in the archive, from "FreeBSD-12" to "FreeBSD-13". The Snort rules update code in the GUI parses the current FreeBSD version from the operating system, so since pfSense is still on FreeBSD 12.3, this results in the rules update code searching for a non-existent "FreeBSD-12" subdirectory in the archive when unpacking it. Until such time as pfSense moves to FreeBSD-13, this logic needs to be changed and the subdirectory name hard-coded to "FreeBSD-13".</p> pfSense - Todo #10199 (New): Improve Spanish translation interfacehttps://redmine.pfsense.org/issues/101992020-01-22T09:20:34ZAluisco Miguel Ricardo Mastrapa