Control: severity -1 minor Hello Bernhard,
Thanks for your research. There are several points here: 1. It would be better to report the issue upstream because the problem itself is not Debian-related and you have more information then me and reproducible setup. https://sourceforge.net/p/minidlna/_list/tickets?source=navbar (But please drop here a link to discussion, so I could follow the topic.) 2. The best way would be to provide patch upstream with some sort of dynamic allocation of ifaces[] array. If you're familiar with C you are welcome. 3. I could increase MAX_LAN_ADDR define in Debian package, but what number should we choose? Is 16 enough? Should we really do this (see 4)? 4. The issue could be solved with iptables (or any other firewall): just bind to all ifaces and block any packets from interfaces you don't want to allow with "-i eth?" switch. 5. Anyway this bug would not be fixed in Stretch because of low severity. 6. I'll take a look at the problem with no error message displayed. On Fri, 22 Dec 2017 22:17:34 +0100 Bernhard Trummer <[email protected]> wrote: > Package: minidlna > Version: 1.1.6+dfsg-1 > Severity: normal > > Dear Maintainer, > > I have a Soekris net6501 box having 4 ethernet ports plus an > additional network card with 2 ports and a USB wireless stick > providing one more interface. Initially I configured minidlna.conf's > network_interface option to all interfaces except the uplink port (5 > ethernet and 1 wireless interfaces in total). Then I wondered, why > minidlna wasn't accessible via the wireless interface. > > After playing around with the config and reducing the number of > network_interface options to 4 in total (3 ethernet and 1 wireless), > the wireless access was working fine. Also the debug log showed that > it now binds to the wireless address. > > After taking a short look into the source code, I found the "culprit" > in minidlnatypes.h: #define MAX_LAN_ADDR 4 > > In total I see two bugs here: > > 1.) > In minidlna.c there's a log for "Too many interfaces (max: %d), > ignoring %s\n" in case the maximum is reached. However, when more > than 4 interfaces are defined in the config file, I don't see this > error in the log file. > > 2.) > I admit that my setup and the amount of network interfaces is quite > "unusal" for a typical home network. But nevertheless, a MAX_LAN_ADDR > of 4 is an "artificial" restriction for my case and therefore this is > a bug for me. > > Thanks. -- Best regards, Alexander Gerasiov Contacts: e-mail: [email protected] Homepage: http://gerasiov.net Skype: gerasiov PGP fingerprint: 04B5 9D90 DF7C C2AB CD49 BAEA CA87 E9E8 2AAC 33F1
