[SNMP4J] Behaviour of ResponseListener in SNMP V3
Frank Fock
fock at agentpp.com
Wed Oct 12 22:45:56 CEST 2016
Hi Peter,
You analysis matches mine. The problem is, that the
cancel returns true on my system and with my unit test in that case.
From reading the code, the cancel must return true in this
case, because the pending request is already scheduled at that time
which is ensured by the pduHandleAssigned callback
from the MessageDispatcherImpl.sendPdu.
Are you using your own MessageDispatcher that does not call the
callback.
(Sorry, I have no plausible other idea...)
Best regards,
Frank
Am 12.10.2016 um 16:29 schrieb Peter Verthez:
> Hi Frank,
>
> I found it suspicious that there was no real explanation, so I went
> back to my test, and unfortunately that test had succeeded with SNMP4J
> 2.5.2 because the agent was genuinely not reachable... When I tested
> again with an agent that should be reachable, I found the same
> problem, also with SNMP4J 2.5.2.
>
> I debugged a little in the SNMP4J code. The cancel is really
> happening after the report message, with the following stack trace:
>
> Daemon Thread [DefaultUDPTransportMapping_172.31.109.98/0] (Suspended
> (breakpoint at line 1925 in Snmp$PendingRequest))
> owns: Snmp$AsyncPendingRequest (id=36087)
> Snmp$AsyncPendingRequest(Snmp$PendingRequest).cancel() line: 1925
> Snmp$ReportProcessor.processReport(PduHandle,
> CommandResponderEvent) line: 1409
> SecureSnmpFactory$WrappedReportHandler.processReport(PduHandle,
> CommandResponderEvent) line: 157
> Snmp.processPdu(CommandResponderEvent) line: 1248
> MessageDispatcherImpl.fireProcessPdu(CommandResponderEvent) line: 691
> MessageDispatcherImpl.dispatchMessage(TransportMapping,
> MessageProcessingModel, Address, BERInputStream,
> TransportStateReference) line: 310
> MessageDispatcherImpl.processMessage(TransportMapping, Address,
> BERInputStream, TransportStateReference) line: 387
> MessageDispatcherImpl.processMessage(TransportMapping, Address,
> ByteBuffer, TransportStateReference) line: 347
> DefaultUdpTransportMapping(AbstractTransportMapping<A>).fireProcessMessage(Address,
> ByteBuffer, TransportStateReference) line: 76
> DefaultUdpTransportMapping$ListenThread.run() line: 425
> Thread.run() line: 745
>
> Here is what I find (with SNMP4J 2.5.2):
> - the 'usmStatsUnknownUserNames' report that we get here is handled in
> ReportProcessor.processReport
> - the resend variable stays false, because it is not one of the 3
> special cases given there in lines 1364-1380
> - as a consequence, the else is entered in line 1402, which cancels
> the request
> - the cancel request returns false here (apparently state of the
> PendingRequest is VIRGIN at that time), so that 'intime' is false on
> Snmp.java line 1414, which causes the listener not to be called
>
> So the question is: why is the state of the PendingRequest equal to
> VIRGIN? Is this unexpected?
>
> Best regards,
> Peter.
>
> On 11/10/2016 0:14, Frank Fock wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> Thank you for trying version 2.5.2, although it seems to be
>> inexplicable why the behavior changed.
>> There are no changes in 2.5.2 and 2.5.1 in the class Snmp.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Frank
>>
>> Am 10.10.2016 um 13:27 schrieb Peter Verthez:
>>> Traces now, for info:
>>>
>>> 2016-10-10 13:25:54,180 DEBUG
>>> [JM-45-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.security.UsmUserTable] Adding user
>>> verthezp_wrong2 =
>>> UsmUser[secName=verthezp_wrong2,authProtocol=1.3.6.1.6.3.10.1.1.3,authPassphrase=12345678,privProtocol=null,privPassphrase=null,localizationEngineID=null]
>>> 2016-10-10 13:25:54,182 DEBUG
>>> [JM-45-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.security.USM] RFC3414 §3.1.4.b
>>> Outgoing message is not encrypted
>>> 2016-10-10 13:25:54,182 DEBUG
>>> [JM-45-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.mp.MPv3] Adding cache entry:
>>> StateReference[msgID=16001,pduHandle=PduHandle[922855848],securityEngineID=,securityModel=org.snmp4j.security.USM at 137719b6,securityName=verthezp_wrong2,securityLevel=1,contextEngineID=,contextName=nt,retryMsgIDs=null]
>>> 2016-10-10 13:25:54,182 DEBUG [JM-45-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp]
>>> Running pending async request with handle PduHandle[922855848] and
>>> retry count left 1
>>> 2016-10-10 13:25:54,182 DEBUG
>>> [JM-45-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.transport.DefaultUdpTransportMapping] Sending
>>> message to 135.249.41.7/161 with length 61:
>>> 30:3b:02:01:03:30:0f:02:02:3e:81:02:03:00:ff:ff:04:01:04:02:01:03:04:10:30:0e:04:00:02:01:00:02:01:00:04:00:04:00:04:00:30:13:04:00:04:02:6e:74:a0:0b:02:01:00:02:01:00:02:01:00:30:00
>>> 2016-10-10 13:25:58,187 DEBUG [SNMP4J
>>> Timer]-[org.snmp4j.security.USM] RFC3414 §3.1.4.b Outgoing message
>>> is not encrypted
>>> 2016-10-10 13:25:58,187 DEBUG [SNMP4J Timer]-[org.snmp4j.mp.MPv3]
>>> Adding cache entry:
>>> StateReference[msgID=16002,pduHandle=PduHandle[922855848],securityEngineID=,securityModel=org.snmp4j.security.USM at 137719b6,securityName=verthezp_wrong2,securityLevel=1,contextEngineID=,contextName=nt,retryMsgIDs=null]
>>> 2016-10-10 13:25:58,188 DEBUG [SNMP4J Timer]-[org.snmp4j.mp.MPv3]
>>> Adding previous message IDs [16001] to new entry
>>> StateReference[msgID=16002,pduHandle=PduHandle[922855848],securityEngineID=,securityModel=org.snmp4j.security.USM at 137719b6,securityName=verthezp_wrong2,securityLevel=1,contextEngineID=,contextName=nt,retryMsgIDs=null]
>>> 2016-10-10 13:25:58,188 DEBUG [SNMP4J Timer]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp]
>>> Running pending async request with handle PduHandle[922855848] and
>>> retry count left 0
>>> 2016-10-10 13:25:58,188 DEBUG [SNMP4J
>>> Timer]-[org.snmp4j.transport.DefaultUdpTransportMapping] Sending
>>> message to 135.249.41.7/161 with length 61:
>>> 30:3b:02:01:03:30:0f:02:02:3e:82:02:03:00:ff:ff:04:01:04:02:01:03:04:10:30:0e:04:00:02:01:00:02:01:00:04:00:04:00:04:00:30:13:04:00:04:02:6e:74:a0:0b:02:01:00:02:01:00:02:01:00:30:00
>>> 2016-10-10 13:26:06,188 DEBUG [SNMP4J Timer]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp]
>>> Request timed out: 922855848
>>> 2016-10-10 13:26:06,188 INFO [SNMP4J
>>> Timer]-[com.alcatel.util.net.snmp.SnmpUserTarget] Received response
>>> org.snmp4j.event.ResponseEvent[source=org.snmp4j.Snmp at dbb54af]
>>> 2016-10-10 13:26:06,189 DEBUG [SNMP4J Timer]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp]
>>> Cancelling pending request with handle PduHandle[922855848]
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Peter.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/10/2016 13:25, Peter Verthez wrote:
>>>> Hi Frank,
>>>>
>>>> I've tried now with SNMP4J 2.5.2 (downloaded by manually changing
>>>> the download URL), and with that version I also can't reproduce the
>>>> problem anymore: the ResponseListener is now called.
>>>>
>>>> So we'll upgrade to that version.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Peter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/10/2016 8:19, Peter Verthez wrote:
>>>>> Hi Frank,
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently the download page is not updated yet for SNMP4J 2.5.2?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.snmp4j.org/html/download.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Peter.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/10/2016 7:58, Peter Verthez wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Frank,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Answers on your possibilities:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. No, the code that I showed in a previous mail is verbatim
>>>>>> copy/pasted from our source code, the snmp.send method call comes
>>>>>> directly after the creation of the ResponseListener.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. No, we don't have an explicit cancel anywhere in our code,
>>>>>> except inside the ResponseListener, as I showed in the code in
>>>>>> the previous mail (which isn't reached).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. No, we are using the original SNMP4J source code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll try with SNMP4J 2.5.2 to see whether that makes a difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Peter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/10/2016 16:36, Frank Fock wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, my statement in my previous message was wrong. Please
>>>>>>> ignore it, because
>>>>>>> setting the request-id field to 0 in a REPORT PDU is OK: If the
>>>>>>> request was encrypted
>>>>>>> the command responder would have no chance to decode the
>>>>>>> request-id field.
>>>>>>> That's is why the command generator has to be able to match the
>>>>>>> request anyway
>>>>>>> by the message-id field. SNMP4J is capable of that, so far, no
>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With SNMP4J 2.5.2 (current release) I still could not reproduce
>>>>>>> the issue.
>>>>>>> My unit test works as expected and calls the ResponseListener.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From the code analysis, I see only three possibilities how the
>>>>>>> behavior you observed
>>>>>>> could happen:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. The ReponseListener parameter is null (please check for a
>>>>>>> typo in the parameter name
>>>>>>> or a null assignment before the send call)
>>>>>>> 2. The pending request was cancelled by closing the Snmp session
>>>>>>> or cancelling the request
>>>>>>> (Normally this would have been reported in the log, but...)
>>>>>>> 3. You did not use the original SNMP4J source code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>> Frank
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 09.10.2016 um 10:33 schrieb Frank Fock:
>>>>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The command responder is not setting the request-id correctly
>>>>>>>> in the REPORT PDU.
>>>>>>>> This is causing the issue on the SNMP4J side. Nevertheless,
>>>>>>>> SNMP4J should behave more
>>>>>>>> robust and should call the response listener after the request
>>>>>>>> times out.
>>>>>>>> I will add a corresponding unit test for that and fix it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>> Frank
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 07.10.2016 um 12:55 schrieb Peter Verthez:
>>>>>>>>> OK, my apologies: I was copying the wrong traces. Here are the
>>>>>>>>> correct ones. I've also added a logging message "Received
>>>>>>>>> response " + event in the first line of the
>>>>>>>>> ResponseListener.onResponse(), and the traces below show that
>>>>>>>>> it is not coming.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2016-10-07 12:51:17,934 DEBUG
>>>>>>>>> [JM-4-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.security.UsmUserTable] Adding
>>>>>>>>> user verthezp_wrong2 =
>>>>>>>>> UsmUser[secName=verthezp_wrong2,authProtocol=1.3.6.1.6.3.10.1.1.3,authPassphrase=12345678,privProtocol=null,privPassphrase=null,localizationEngineID=null]
>>>>>>>>> 2016-10-07 12:51:17,950 DEBUG
>>>>>>>>> [JM-4-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.mp.MPv3] Context engine ID of
>>>>>>>>> scoped PDU is empty! Setting it to authoritative engine ID:
>>>>>>>>> 80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc
>>>>>>>>> 2016-10-07 12:51:17,956 DEBUG
>>>>>>>>> [JM-4-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.security.USM]
>>>>>>>>> getUser(engineID=80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc,
>>>>>>>>> securityName=verthezp_wrong2)
>>>>>>>>> 2016-10-07 12:51:17,964 DEBUG
>>>>>>>>> [JM-4-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.security.USM] RFC3414 §3.1.4.b
>>>>>>>>> Outgoing message is not encrypted
>>>>>>>>> 2016-10-07 12:51:17,965 DEBUG
>>>>>>>>> [JM-4-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.mp.MPv3] Adding cache entry:
>>>>>>>>> StateReference[msgID=46925,pduHandle=PduHandle[1444975050],securityEngineID=80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc,securityModel=org.snmp4j.security.USM at 529c7488,securityName=verthezp_wrong2,securityLevel=2,contextEngineID=80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc,contextName=nt,retryMsgIDs=null]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2016-10-07 12:51:17,972 DEBUG
>>>>>>>>> [JM-4-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp] Running pending async
>>>>>>>>> request with handle PduHandle[1444975050] and retry count left 1
>>>>>>>>> 2016-10-07 12:51:17,973 DEBUG
>>>>>>>>> [JM-4-Ping-Ping-7]-[org.snmp4j.transport.DefaultUdpTransportMapping]
>>>>>>>>> Sending message to 135.249.41.7/161 with length 357:
>>>>>>>>> 30:82:01:61:02:01:03:30:10:02:03:00:b7:4d:02:03:00:ff:ff:04:01:05:02:01:03:04:38:30:36:04:0b:80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc:02:01:08:02:03:02:86:91:04:0f:76:65:72:74:68:65:7a:70:5f:77:72:6f:6e:67:32:04:0c:c2:71:d3:1c:34:43:4a:bb:b8:ba:b2:93:04:00:30:82:01:0e:04:0b:80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc:04:02:6e:74:a0:81:fa:02:04:56:20:91:ca:02:01:00:02:01:00:30:81:eb:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:03:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:01:06:00:05:00:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:0b:09:00:05:00:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:0b:02:00:05:00:30:12:06:0e:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:23:3c:03:02:00:05:00:30:0c:06:08:2b:06:01:02:01:01:03:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:01:07:00:05:00:30:0c:06:08:2b:06:01:02:01:01:02:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:01:03:00:05:00:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:0d:00:05:00:30:12:06:0e:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:02:01:04:01:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:1c:01:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:1c:02:00:05:00
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2016-10-07 12:51:18,125 DEBUG
>>>>>>>>> [DefaultUDPTransportMapping_172.31.109.98/0]-[org.snmp4j.transport.DefaultUdpTransportMapping]
>>>>>>>>> Received message from /135.249.41.7/161 with length 103:
>>>>>>>>> 30:65:02:01:03:30:10:02:03:00:b7:4d:02:03:00:ff:ff:04:01:00:02:01:03:04:1d:30:1b:04:0b:80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc:02:01:08:02:03:02:86:92:04:00:04:00:04:00:30:2f:04:0b:80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc:04:02:6e:74:a8:1c:02:01:00:02:01:00:02:01:00:30:11:30:0f:06:0a:2b:06:01:06:03:0f:01:01:03:00:41:01:44
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2016-10-07 12:51:18,125 DEBUG
>>>>>>>>> [DefaultUDPTransportMapping_172.31.109.98/0]-[org.snmp4j.mp.MPv3]
>>>>>>>>> SNMPv3 header decoded: msgId=46925, msgMaxSize=65535,
>>>>>>>>> msgFlags=00, secModel=3
>>>>>>>>> 2016-10-07 12:51:18,126 DEBUG
>>>>>>>>> [DefaultUDPTransportMapping_172.31.109.98/0]-[org.snmp4j.security.USM]
>>>>>>>>> Accepting zero length security name
>>>>>>>>> 2016-10-07 12:51:18,126 DEBUG
>>>>>>>>> [DefaultUDPTransportMapping_172.31.109.98/0]-[org.snmp4j.mp.MPv3]
>>>>>>>>> Removed cache entry:
>>>>>>>>> StateReference[msgID=46925,pduHandle=PduHandle[1444975050],securityEngineID=80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc,securityModel=org.snmp4j.security.USM at 529c7488,securityName=verthezp_wrong2,securityLevel=2,contextEngineID=80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc,contextName=nt,retryMsgIDs=null]
>>>>>>>>> 2016-10-07 12:51:18,126 DEBUG
>>>>>>>>> [DefaultUDPTransportMapping_172.31.109.98/0]-[org.snmp4j.mp.MPv3]
>>>>>>>>> RFC3412 §7.2.10 - Received PDU (msgID=46925) is a response or
>>>>>>>>> an internal class message. PduHandle.transactionID = 1444975050
>>>>>>>>> 2016-10-07 12:51:18,126 DEBUG
>>>>>>>>> [DefaultUDPTransportMapping_172.31.109.98/0]-[org.snmp4j.mp.MPv3]
>>>>>>>>> MPv3 finished
>>>>>>>>> 2016-10-07 12:51:18,126 DEBUG
>>>>>>>>> [DefaultUDPTransportMapping_172.31.109.98/0]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp]
>>>>>>>>> Searching pending request with handlePduHandle[1444975050]
>>>>>>>>> 2016-10-07 12:51:18,128 INFO
>>>>>>>>> [DefaultUDPTransportMapping_172.31.109.98/0]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp]
>>>>>>>>> Received late report from 135.249.41.7/161 with request ID 0
>>>>>>>>> 2016-10-07 12:51:21,973 DEBUG [SNMP4J Timer]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp]
>>>>>>>>> PendingRequest canceled key=null, pdu=null, target=null,
>>>>>>>>> transport=null, listener=null
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>> Peter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 7/10/2016 8:18, Peter Verthez wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ah, maybe I copied the wrong traces then and that is the
>>>>>>>>>> source of the confusion (we have a mix of SNMPv2 and v3 agents).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let me check...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Peter.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2016 21:45, Frank Fock wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The PDU that is send is a SNMPv2c GET request and not a v3
>>>>>>>>>>> request.
>>>>>>>>>>> So this cannot be an issue with the USM or other v3 processing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To be able to reproduce the issue I might need more details.
>>>>>>>>>>> If it is indeed
>>>>>>>>>>> a v3 request, I would like to have the log for it. In addition,
>>>>>>>>>>> is the "unknown user" locally unknown the the USM of the
>>>>>>>>>>> command
>>>>>>>>>>> sender or remotely unknown to the command responder.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If locally unknown, a exception is thrown during the send call.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>> Frank
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 06.10.2016 um 09:45 schrieb Peter Verthez:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Frank,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The PDU instance is not used in another thread, only in
>>>>>>>>>>>> this one. All normal functionality works properly (we
>>>>>>>>>>>> started to use async requests 1.5 years ago), except for
>>>>>>>>>>>> this timeout due to a wrong security name being used. I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>> not sure whether that is a new regression or something that
>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't tested before by our test team.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure which further information I have to give, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> can't provide the full source code as this is a proprietary
>>>>>>>>>>>> product. If you want me to debug something specific I can
>>>>>>>>>>>> do that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/10/2016 22:55, Frank Fock wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From the provided send call alone, I cannot verify if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> parameters are correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> setup. The SnmpUserTarget.this, for example, might not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work if called in a constructor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of that class.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The pdu instance might be used concurrently by another
>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread (with same or different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> request ID), which would corrupt the pending request
>>>>>>>>>>>>> management.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Frank
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 05.10.2016 um 08:14 schrieb Peter Verthez:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Frank,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The call of the send method was in the last line of my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code snippet: session is an Snmp object.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2016 20:12, Frank Fock wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How do call the send method? Is the listener set there?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All fields null should not happen normally....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Frank
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 04.10.2016 um 11:18 schrieb Peter Verthez:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Frank,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Our code is simply:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ResponseListener respListener = new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ResponseListener() {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @Override
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public void
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onResponse(ResponseEvent event) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // canceling is required as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> per SNMP4J documentation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ((Snmp)event.getSource()).cancel(event.getRequest(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PDU response =
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event.getResponse();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> updateStats(session, agentId, startTime, response);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listener.onResponse(response, event.getUserObject());
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> session.send(pdu, SnmpUserTarget.this, userContext,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> respListener);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't reach even the first line of the onResponse
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> method.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've been debugging a little, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PendingRequest.run() method in the Snmp class is always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being exited because all fields are null, and so it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never calls the onResponse method on the listener. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is also what the debug message says:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016-09-28 16:43:36,861 DEBUG [SNMP4J
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timer]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp] PendingRequest canceled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key=null, pdu=null, target=null, transport=null,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listener=null
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've then put a breakpoint in the cancel() method, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it gets run when the following report is coming in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (copied from the debugger):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> REPORT[{contextEngineID=80:00:02:7d:03:00:90:d0:6d:fa:bc,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contextName=nt}, requestID=0, errorStatus=0,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> errorIndex=0, VBS[1.3.6.1.6.3.15.1.1.3.0 = 18]]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/10/2016 23:06, Frank Fock wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the ResponseEvent should be returned after the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> timeout with a null response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From the log, it is unclear why you do not get the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event. Is there an if-statement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that ignores the ResponseEvent with null response in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your code?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Frank
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 30.09.2016 um 10:12 schrieb Peter Verthez:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Frank,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we are using asynchronous SNMP calls with SNMPv3,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what should be the behaviour in case of timeout, when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you used wrong credentials such as a wrong user name.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should the ResponseListener always be triggered, with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> event.getResponse() = null, after the timeout?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would expect that, but it looks like this is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I'm seeing: the ResponseListener does not seem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be triggered in that case. So this means that our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application never knows that a timeout occurred. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are using currently SNMP4J 2.5.0. Debug logging from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SNMP4J:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016-09-28 16:43:31,768 DEBUG
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [JM-49-Ping-Ping-4]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp] Running pending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> async request with handle PduHandle[1071987217] and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retry count left 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016-09-28 16:43:31,768 DEBUG
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [JM-49-Ping-Ping-4]-[org.snmp4j.transport.DefaultUdpTransportMapping]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sending message to 135.249.41.44/161 with length 268:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 30:82:01:08:02:01:01:04:06:70:75:62:6c:69:63:a0:81:fa:02:04:3f:e5:3a:11:02:01:00:02:01:00:30:81:eb:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:03:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:01:06:00:05:00:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:0b:09:00:05:00:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:0b:02:00:05:00:30:12:06:0e:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:23:3c:03:02:00:05:00:30:0c:06:08:2b:06:01:02:01:01:03:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:01:07:00:05:00:30:0c:06:08:2b:06:01:02:01:01:02:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:01:03:00:05:00:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:0d:00:05:00:30:12:06:0e:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:02:01:04:01:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:1c:01:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:1c:02:00:05:00
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016-09-28 16:43:35,771 DEBUG [SNMP4J
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timer]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp] Running pending async
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request with handle PduHandle[1071987217] and retry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> count left 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016-09-28 16:43:35,771 DEBUG [SNMP4J
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timer]-[org.snmp4j.transport.DefaultUdpTransportMapping]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sending message to 135.249.41.44/161 with length 268:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 30:82:01:08:02:01:01:04:06:70:75:62:6c:69:63:a0:81:fa:02:04:3f:e5:3a:11:02:01:00:02:01:00:30:81:eb:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:03:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:01:06:00:05:00:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:0b:09:00:05:00:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:0b:02:00:05:00:30:12:06:0e:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:23:3c:03:02:00:05:00:30:0c:06:08:2b:06:01:02:01:01:03:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:01:07:00:05:00:30:0c:06:08:2b:06:01:02:01:01:02:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:01:03:00:05:00:30:10:06:0c:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:0d:00:05:00:30:12:06:0e:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:17:02:01:04:01:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:1c:01:00:05:00:30:11:06:0d:2b:06:01:04:01:84:7d:3d:01:09:1c:02:00:05:00
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016-09-28 16:43:36,861 DEBUG [SNMP4J
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timer]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp] PendingRequest canceled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> key=null, pdu=null, target=null, transport=null,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> listener=null
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016-09-28 16:43:43,771 DEBUG [SNMP4J
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timer]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp] Request timed out: 1071987217
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016-09-28 16:43:43,772 DEBUG [SNMP4J
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timer]-[org.snmp4j.Snmp] Cancelling pending request
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with handle PduHandle[1071987217]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Peter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> SNMP4J mailing list
>>>>>>> SNMP4J at agentpp.org
>>>>>>> https://oosnmp.net/mailman/listinfo/snmp4j
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
--
---
AGENT++
Maximilian-Kolbe-Str. 10
73257 Koengen, Germany
https://agentpp.com
Phone: +49 7024 8688230
Fax: +49 7024 8688231
More information about the SNMP4J
mailing list