Bug #8902

The Unsafe Browser can't start anymore unless NM got exactly one nameserver

Added by shrineofyourlies 2015-02-14 01:39:59 . Updated 2015-02-24 22:41:33 .

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Elevated
Assignee:
Category:
Target version:
Tails_1.3
Start date:
2015-02-14
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Feature Branch:
bugfix/8902-unsafe-browser-vs-nm-nameservers
Type of work:
Code
Blueprint:

Starter:
Affected tool:
Unsafe Browser
Deliverable for:

Description

I upgraded to the Tails 1.3~rc1 image via the instructions listed on the relevant blog post. Since upgrading, I have attempted to launch the clearnet browser, via both the GUI and via terminal, and I am shown this error:
“unsafe-browser: error: NetworkManager passed us garbage data when trying to deduce the clearnet DNS server.”

I have Tor Browser running at the same time fed by my computer’s built-in WiFi card.

Subtasks

History

#1 Updated by intrigeri 2015-02-14 12:23:06

  • Assignee set to anonym
  • Priority changed from Normal to Elevated
  • Target version set to Tails_1.3
  • Type of work changed from Discuss to Code
  • Affected tool set to Unsafe Browser

anonym, this looks like a regression caused by the stricter parsing of whatever we get from NM. May you please ask whatever additional info you need to the reporter?

#2 Updated by mercedes508 2015-02-15 13:27:56

  • Status changed from New to Rejected

I wanst’ able to reproduce it, so no bug to me.

#3 Updated by intrigeri 2015-02-15 13:45:54

  • Status changed from Rejected to New

mercedes508: the fact that the data sent by your own DHCP server doesn’t trigger this bug doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. As said in previous comment, I can see why there could be a regression in this area. We have release candidates precisely to identify such regressions.

#4 Updated by Tails 2015-02-16 10:24:36

  • Status changed from New to In Progress

Applied in changeset commit:d29bdd13cf8da88589cace4863d8cbb064d9ec45.

#5 Updated by anonym 2015-02-16 10:26:16

  • Assignee deleted (anonym)
  • Feature Branch set to bugfix/8902-unsafe-browser-vs-nm-nameservers

intrigeri wrote:
> anonym, this looks like a regression caused by the stricter parsing of whatever we get from NM. May you please ask whatever additional info you need to the reporter?

Sure. shrineofyourlies, can you please reproduce the error, and then give us the contents of the file /var/lib/NetworkManager/env.

I have a pretty good guess what the issue is, though. Currently that file has to match the regex: "^IP4_NAMESERVERS=\"${IP4_REGEX}\"$" so only one DNS server is allowed. However, according to NetworkManager(8), “IP4_NAMESERVERS contains a space-separated list of the DNS servers”, so we need to allow zero or more. We should allow zero, because that would still be valid (at least not garbage) and we would deal with it appropriately later any way.

I’ve pushed a branch which fixes this, but I guess we should wait with merging it until shrineofyourlies has answered.

#6 Updated by intrigeri 2015-02-17 11:14:17

  • Assignee set to intrigeri
  • % Done changed from 0 to 30
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA

Going to review and merge this, and then I’ll ask shrineofyourlies to test the resulting nightly built ISO.

#7 Updated by intrigeri 2015-02-17 13:15:22

  • Subject changed from Clearnet browser won't launch [1.3~rc1] to The Unsafe Browser can't start anymore unless NM got exactly one nameserver

#8 Updated by Tails 2015-02-17 13:17:08

  • Status changed from In Progress to Fix committed
  • % Done changed from 30 to 100

Applied in changeset commit:65fcba7107e99b036d909ba0add9b37186fbafee.

#9 Updated by intrigeri 2015-02-17 13:19:11

  • % Done changed from 100 to 30

Manually tested with 1 and 2 nameservers in /var/lib/NetworkManager/env, looks good so merged. Now running the unsafe_browser, windows_camouflage and firewall_leaks automated tests.

#10 Updated by anonym 2015-02-17 14:08:41

  • Assignee deleted (intrigeri)
  • % Done changed from 30 to 0
  • QA Check deleted (Ready for QA)

FTR, I tried pinging the user via email, but the given email address was apparently fake (got a “5.1.1 … Recipient address rejected: User unknown”).

#11 Updated by intrigeri 2015-02-17 14:18:06

  • % Done changed from 0 to 100

#12 Updated by shrineofyourlies 2015-02-20 00:56:08

my apologies for the email issue. i see that you’ve managed to fix it, and i thank you for doing so.

if it’s any help to further the fix, here’s the contents of the requested file, redacted for security:

amnesia@amnesia:~$ cat /var/lib/NetworkManager/env
IP4_NAMESERVERS=“192.168.0.1 xxx.xxx.202.166”

#13 Updated by BitingBird 2015-02-23 02:02:55

  • QA Check set to Pass

#14 Updated by BitingBird 2015-02-24 22:41:33

  • Status changed from Fix committed to Resolved