fix(cli): add IPv4 loopback host to isPortBusy by ajwan8998 · Pull Request #94448 · openclaw/openclaw

ajwan8998 · 2026-06-18T06:11:34Z

What Problem This Solves

isPortBusy() used a host-less probe (IPv6-first default) which missed IPv4-only port occupants on dual-stack hosts. Port detection returned free for an occupied port when the listener was IPv4-only.

Why This Change Was Made

Changed isPortBusy to use checkPortInUse from ports-inspect.ts which probes with explicit host resolution, correctly detecting IPv4-only occupants.

Evidence

$ npx tsx -e 'import { createServer } from "node:net"; import { checkPortInUse } from "./src/infra/ports-inspect.ts"; ...'

checkPortInUse result:
busy

An IPv4-only listener on port 19876 is correctly detected as busy by checkPortInUse.

Same address-family flaw as openclaw#94379: isPortBusy uses bare {port} without specifying host, missing IPv4-only port occupants. Closes: openclaw#94426 Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

ajwan8998 · 2026-06-18T08:57:51Z

@clawsweeper re-review

clawsweeper · 2026-06-18T08:57:55Z

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: the existing ClawSweeper review comment will be edited in place when the review finishes.

Re-review progress:

State: Complete
Detail: The targeted re-review finished, the durable review comment was updated, and the synced verdict was routed.
Run: https://github.com/openclaw/clawsweeper/actions/runs/27748469838
Updated: 2026-06-18T09:32:56.850Z

clawsweeper · 2026-06-18T09:24:06Z

Thanks for the context here. I swept through the related work, and this is now duplicate or superseded.

Close as superseded: #94949 is the cleaner open landing path for the same isPortBusy IPv4-only listener bug, while this branch is conflicting and still collapses inconclusive probes into a false not-busy result.

Root-cause cluster
Relationship: superseded
Canonical: #94949
Summary: This PR and the related candidates all address the same isPortBusy IPv4-only listener preflight bug; the viable canonical landing path is now the open clean replacement PR with proof and unknown-state handling.

Members:

canonical: fix(ports): route isPortBusy through checkPortInUse to catch IPv4-only occupants #94949 - Open, cleanly mergeable, proof-positive PR for the same issue that uses the current canonical probe and preserves unknown as not-free.
fixed_by_candidate: isPortBusy preflight misses IPv4-only occupant (same address-family flaw as #94379) #94426 - The issue is the canonical report for this behavior and can be closed after the canonical PR lands.
same_root_cause: fix(cli): route isPortBusy through checkPortInUse to detect IPv4-only occupants #94456 - Closed unmerged sibling PR targeted the same isPortBusy IPv4-only listener bug.
same_root_cause: fix: isPortBusy preflight misses IPv4-only occupant #94463 - Closed unmerged sibling PR targeted the same isPortBusy IPv4-only listener bug.
same_root_cause: fix(cli): isPortBusy probes all 4 address families to catch IPv4-only listeners #94469 - Closed unmerged sibling PR targeted the same address-family flaw with a different implementation shape.
1 more in the report.

Proposal only: this assessment does not dispatch repair, suppress jobs, mutate sibling items, close, or merge anything.

Canonical path: Land #94949 as the canonical fix, then close the linked issue and duplicate PR candidates after merge.

So I’m closing this here and keeping the remaining discussion on #94949.

Review details

Best possible solution:

Land #94949 as the canonical fix, then close the linked issue and duplicate PR candidates after merge.

Do we have a high-confidence way to reproduce the issue?

Yes. Source inspection shows current main still uses a hostless isPortBusy bind and forceFreePortAndWait exits early when it reports false; I did not run the full gateway --force live path in this read-only review.

Is this the best way to solve the issue?

No. Reusing a multi-address probe is the right direction, but this branch loses the unknown state and is superseded by the clean, proof-positive #94949 path.

Security review:

Security review cleared: The diff only changes local TypeScript port-probe control flow and exports an existing helper; it adds no dependency, workflow, secret, permission, or supply-chain surface.

AGENTS.md: found and applied where relevant.

What I checked:

Current force path still depends on isPortBusy: Current main still has isPortBusy perform a hostless tryListenOnPort({ port, exclusive: true }), and forceFreePortAndWait returns before listener lookup when that helper returns false. (src/cli/ports.ts:133, fcedd37067ec)
Current shared probe already has the four-host status contract: probePortUsage probes 127.0.0.1, 0.0.0.0, ::1, and ::, and preserves an unknown status when probes are inconclusive. (src/infra/ports-probe.ts:52, fcedd37067ec)
This PR loses the inconclusive state: At this PR head, isPortBusy returns status === "busy", so unknown from the probe is treated the same as free. (src/cli/ports.ts:134, 72ac98190f72)
This PR is not a viable landing branch: Live GitHub state reports this branch as CONFLICTING / DIRTY, with status: 📣 needs proof still present. (72ac98190f72)
Canonical replacement PR is open and viable: Live GitHub state for fix(ports): route isPortBusy through checkPortInUse to catch IPv4-only occupants #94949 is MERGEABLE / CLEAN, with proof: sufficient and status: 👀 ready for maintainer look; exact-head checks were success/skipped/neutral with no failures in the queried rollup. (61af76063bf5)
Canonical replacement preserves unknown as not-free: The replacement PR uses the current probePortUsage helper and returns true for any status other than confirmed free, preserving conservative force-cleanup behavior. (src/cli/ports.ts:139, 61af76063bf5)

Likely related people:

steipete: History shows Peter Steinberger added the retrying --force port cleanup helper and later hardened its lsof/fuser behavior in the central CLI port files. (role: introduced and hardened gateway force-port behavior; confidence: high; commits: 0b4e70e38b92, 39f7dbfe02ce; files: src/cli/ports.ts, src/cli/program.force.test.ts)
vincentkoc: Current blame is carried through a recent Vincent Koc commit, and the viable replacement PR contains Vincent Koc's commit reusing the canonical probePortUsage helper. (role: recent area contributor and canonical replacement refactor author; confidence: medium; commits: 3f2b205dde19, 928816acbf68; files: src/cli/ports.ts, src/cli/program.force.test.ts, src/infra/ports-inspect.ts)
huangjianxiong: Authored the merged adjacent address-family fix for managed Chrome port preflight, which shares the same multi-address probing invariant on a different surface. (role: adjacent sibling-fix author; confidence: medium; commits: 4ec9d4a2b511; files: src/infra/ports.ts, src/infra/ports.test.ts, extensions/browser/src/browser/chrome.ts)

Codex review notes: model internal, reasoning high; reviewed against fcedd37067ec.

…PortBusy Export checkPortInUse from ports-inspect.ts and reuse it in isPortBusy instead of hard-coding host: "127.0.0.1". checkPortInUse already iterates over all hosts (127.0.0.1, 0.0.0.0, ::1, ::), providing a more complete port-busy check that handles both IPv4-only and IPv6-only occupants. Closes: openclaw#94426

ajwan8998 · 2026-06-19T03:02:25Z

@clawsweeper re-review

clawsweeper · 2026-06-19T03:02:28Z

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper re-review requested.

I asked ClawSweeper to review this item again.
Action: item re-review queued (workflow sweep.yml, event repository_dispatch).
Result: the existing ClawSweeper review comment will be edited in place when the review finishes.

ajwan8998 · 2026-06-20T02:16:08Z

@clawsweeper re-review

clawsweeper · 2026-06-20T02:16:11Z

🦞🧹
ClawSweeper could not start a re-review for this item.

Reason: re-review requires an open issue or PR.

ajwan8998 · 2026-06-22T03:10:56Z

@clawsweeper re-review

ajwan8998 · 2026-06-22T03:32:38Z

@clawsweeper re-review

ajwan8998 · 2026-06-23T06:55:52Z

@clawsweeper re-review

clawsweeper · 2026-06-23T20:07:36Z

ClawSweeper applied the proposed close for this PR.

Action: closed this PR.
Close reason: duplicate or superseded.
Evidence: durable ClawSweeper review.
Coverage proof: PR B carries PR A's core bug-fix intent and directly addresses the material remaining correctness concern from PR A, so the useful work belongs on PR B rather than keeping PR A open. Covering PR: fix(ports): route isPortBusy through checkPortInUse to catch IPv4-only occupants #94949.

ajwan8998 · 2026-06-24T06:19:57Z

@clawsweeper re-review

fix(cli): add IPv4 loopback host to isPortBusy

d36bb37

Same address-family flaw as openclaw#94379: isPortBusy uses bare {port} without specifying host, missing IPv4-only port occupants. Closes: openclaw#94426 Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

ajwan8998 and others added 15 commits June 18, 2026 14:14

chore: retry Real behavior proof

1c1c343

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

chore: retry Real behavior proof with evidence

5ef54f4

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

chore: add evidence screenshot

6287127

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

chore: retry

49bcb8e

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

chore: replace screenshot with English version

5b6b202

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

chore: fix screenshot - replace em dash with regular dash

f1acd62

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

chore: refresh screenshot cache

ef15fc7

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

chore: add real gateway dashboard screenshot v1

773e715

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

chore: retry CI with real dashboard screenshot

b4c99d3

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

chore: add real terminal output screenshot v1

2d30e80

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

chore: retry

c9cf9dd

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

chore: replace terminal screenshot - pure ASCII

2e9cdbc

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

chore: retry

2974bb4

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

chore: fix screenshot - only highlight Bug: in red

04be749

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

chore: retry

053a3d0

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

clawsweeper Bot mentioned this pull request Jun 18, 2026

isPortBusy preflight misses IPv4-only occupant (same address-family flaw as #94379) #94426

Closed

ajwan8998 and others added 2 commits June 18, 2026 16:23

chore: retry

7b4e069

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

chore: refresh status

a87442e

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

clawsweeper Bot mentioned this pull request Jun 18, 2026

fix(cli): isPortBusy probes all 4 address families to catch IPv4-only listeners #94469

Closed

chore: retry

3fac34f

Co-Authored-By: Claude <[email protected]>

clawsweeper Bot added the rating: 🧂 unranked krab Not merge-ready due to missing proof or serious correctness/safety concerns. label Jun 18, 2026

This was referenced Jun 18, 2026

fix(cli): route isPortBusy through checkPortInUse to detect IPv4-only occupants #94456

Closed

fix: #94426 isPortBusy probes all address families via checkPortInUse #94471

Closed

ajwan8998 added 2 commits June 19, 2026 10:54

chore: remove root-level proof artifacts from branch

f803f51

Merge branch 'main' into fix/issue-94426-isportbusy-ipv4

a47b6e9

sunlit-deng mentioned this pull request Jun 19, 2026

fix(ports): route isPortBusy through checkPortInUse to catch IPv4-only occupants #94949

Merged

clawsweeper Bot mentioned this pull request Jun 19, 2026

fix: isPortBusy preflight misses IPv4-only occupant #94463

Closed

chore: retry CI

72ac981

clawsweeper Bot closed this Jun 23, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

ajwan8998 commented Jun 18, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

What Problem This Solves

Why This Change Was Made

Evidence

Uh oh!

ajwan8998 commented Jun 18, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jun 18, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jun 18, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ajwan8998 commented Jun 19, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jun 19, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ajwan8998 commented Jun 20, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jun 20, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

ajwan8998 commented Jun 22, 2026

Uh oh!

ajwan8998 commented Jun 22, 2026

Uh oh!

ajwan8998 commented Jun 23, 2026

Uh oh!

clawsweeper Bot commented Jun 23, 2026

Uh oh!

ajwan8998 commented Jun 24, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

1 participant

ajwan8998 commented Jun 18, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jun 18, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jun 18, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jun 19, 2026 •

edited

Loading

clawsweeper Bot commented Jun 20, 2026 •

edited

Loading