Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Wednesday 24 September 2008 00:19, Michael Davis wrote: > >> I started messing around with the rc.sysinit file thinking that maybe >> something had changed between the different versions. >> I found the problem was with this section >> >> if [ "x`grep ip= /proc/cmdline`" = "x" ] >> then >> udhcpc -i eth0 -b -p /var/run/udhcpc.eth0.pid >/dev/null 2>&1 >> fi >> >> So I tested the udhcpc with the above command in a normal terminal and >> it doesn't go to the background. >> I then tested it without sending the output to /dev/null. I get this >> output. >> udhcpc (v1.11.2) started >> Sending discover... >> Sending select for 192.168.1.169... >> Sending select for 192.168.1.169... >> Sending select for 192.168.1.169... >> Sending discover... >> Sending select for 192.168.1.169... >> Sending select for 192.168.1.169... >> Sending select for 192.168.1.169... >> > > This is interesting. Your DHCP server _does_ offer you an IP, > but then it doesn't ACK it. udhcpc does not expect such a loop, > and never invokes > "-b,--background Background if lease is not immediately obtained" > code. > > Can you capture "tcpdump -nlieth0 -s0 port 67 or port 68" output > while it runs? > > Please try attached patch, does it make udhcpc background? > > On a side note, the way you do network config is fragile. > Don't you see that hardcoding eth0 interface name is asking > for trouble in multihomed case? What will happen if > /proc/cmdline would accidentally contain e.g. "turnip=big" > substring? > > -- > vda > Output of tcpdump is as follows. Repeating on forever of course. 16:48:49.033831 IP 0.0.0.0.bootpc > 255.255.255.255.bootps: BOOTP/DHCP, Request from 00:ba:d0:0b:ad:00, length 548 16:48:52.101304 IP 0.0.0.0.bootpc > 255.255.255.255.bootps: BOOTP/DHCP, Request from 00:ba:d0:0b:ad:00, length 548 16:48:55.238251 IP 0.0.0.0.bootpc > 255.255.255.255.bootps: BOOTP/DHCP, Request from 00:ba:d0:0b:ad:00, length 548 16:48:55.538411 IP 192.168.1.1.bootps > 255.255.255.255.bootpc: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 300 16:48:55.577928 IP 0.0.0.0.bootpc > 255.255.255.255.bootps: BOOTP/DHCP, Request from 00:ba:d0:0b:ad:00, length 548 16:48:58.655093 IP 0.0.0.0.bootpc > 255.255.255.255.bootps: BOOTP/DHCP, Request from 00:ba:d0:0b:ad:00, length 548 16:49:01.721297 IP 0.0.0.0.bootpc > 255.255.255.255.bootps: BOOTP/DHCP, Request from 00:ba:d0:0b:ad:00, length 548 16:49:04.878192 IP 0.0.0.0.bootpc > 255.255.255.255.bootps: BOOTP/DHCP, Request from 00:ba:d0:0b:ad:00, length 548 16:49:05.178964 IP 192.168.1.1.bootps > 255.255.255.255.bootpc: BOOTP/DHCP, Reply, length 300
Patch didn't make any difference that I could see. Cirrus has a lot of problems with their environment so it doesn't surprise me their configuration sucks. I don't think they really intended it for multihomed environment any ways. My udhcpc is already disabled and that config is taken out. Just helping the bug hunting effort at this point. :P -- Michael Davis Software Engineer DTL Controls, LLC Ph. 402-502-2340 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
