[arch-general] sendfax: 460 Failed to submit job 110: Unable to open scheduler FIFO: No such device or address.

[David C. Rankin]

On 09/26/2018 05:25 PM, David C. Rankin wrote:
> All,
> 
>   After recent updates, hylafax/sendfax fails with the error:
> 
> sendfax: 460 Failed to submit job 110: Unable to open scheduler FIFO: No such
> device or address.
> 
> it had been working find up until the last week or two. Reverting to the LTS
> kernel resolves the issue. There are no obvious errors in the journal.
> 
>   Does anyone know why sendfax would begin failing with "Unable to open
> scheduler FIFO: No such device or address." with the current kernel, but work
> fine on LTS?
> 
> (I have confirmed this behavior on two separate Arch servers)
> 

The last successful outbound fax before this failure began was 9/19. Since
that time the only relevant updates have been:

linux (4.18.8.arch1-1 -> 4.18.9.arch1-1)
hylafax (6.0.6-8 -> 6.0.7-1)

Since hylafax 6.0.7-1 works fine with LTS, that points to linux 4.18.9 being
the problem.

What would I check to determine why sendfax is unable to open scheduler FIFO
(No such device or address) when running on linux 4.18.9? Permissions under
/var/spool/hylafax are the same under both kernels:


 # l /var/spool/hylafax/
total 76
drwxr-xr-x 17 uucp uucp 4096 Sep 25 22:16 .
drwxr-xr-x 10 root root 4096 Dec 29  2013 ..
drwx------  2 uucp uucp 4096 May 21  2013 archive
drwxr-xr-x  2 uucp uucp 4096 Sep 25 22:16 bin
drwxr-xr-x  2 uucp uucp 4096 Sep 26 15:49 client
drwxr-xr-x  2 uucp uucp 4096 Sep 25 22:16 config
drwxr-xr-x  2 uucp uucp 4096 Oct 23  2017 dev
drwx------  2 uucp uucp 4096 Sep 26 15:49 docq
drwx------  2 uucp uucp 4096 Sep 20 00:00 doneq
drwxr-xr-x  3 uucp uucp 4096 Sep 26 00:00 etc
drwxr-xr-x  2 uucp uucp 4096 Sep 19 15:12 info
drwxr-xr-x  2 uucp uucp 4096 Sep 26 10:25 log
drwx------  2 uucp uucp 4096 May 21  2013 pollq
drwxr-xr-x  2 uucp uucp 4096 Sep 26 10:25 recvq
drwx------  2 uucp uucp 4096 Sep 26 15:49 sendq
drwxr-xr-x  2 uucp uucp 4096 Oct 23  2017 status
drwx------  2 uucp uucp 4096 Sep 26 15:49 tmp
-r--r--r--  1 root root 5426 Sep 25 07:29 COPYRIGHT
prw-------  1 uucp uucp    0 Sep 25 07:29 FIFO
prw-------  1 uucp uucp    0 Sep 20 19:57 FIFO.ttyS0

The FIFO is there owned by uucp:uucp in both cases. Did the latest kernel
tighten some type of security that would effect mkfifo for hylafax in some way?

This caught me somewhat off-guard as both Arch servers are used in a
production capacity and I had a fax that needed to go to Scottsdale before
close of business.

Any thoughts welcomed. I'll also post to the hylafax list and report back if
there is any information there.


-- 
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.