- CheckMates
- :
- Products
- :
- Hybrid Mesh
- :
- Cloud Firewall
- :
- Discussion
- :
- R82 Upgrade Failed Error HV000028: Unexpected exce...
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Printer Friendly Page
Are you a member of CheckMates?
×- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
R82 Upgrade Failed Error HV000028: Unexpected exception during isValid call.
Hello CheckMates,
I am seeking some help on the topic of Checkpoint R81.20 JHF 118 > R82 inline upgrade in Azure.
I have been attempting to perform inline upgrade on Azure-hosted management, however run into weird issues.
Import of one of the domains into Multi-Domain Management failed with the following error:
HV000028: Unexpected exception during isValid call.
This interrupted the whole import of the Management Database.
TAC doesnt know yet. Anyone have seen something like this?
Checked few SKs, one mentioned objects that contains omre than 32k of objects, but that is not the case. I do not have so many object in any group.
Appreciate any guidance
CPM log shows errors like this:
17/01/26 15:23:43,353 INFO upgrade.ngmImport.ImportTask [upgradeTaskExecutor-5]: getting foldersPerDomain for domain :: e644a839-573c-4c56-a9c2-44ecdf5acfff
17/01/26 15:23:43,353 INFO upgrade.ngmImport.ImportTask [upgradeTaskExecutor-5]: object 60b15fda-5bb0-4f60-969e-9207efeb6d32 is default object
17/01/26 15:23:43,353 INFO upgrade.ngmImport.ImportTask [upgradeTaskExecutor-5]: Updating 1 objects from class class com.checkpoint.objects.grc.dummy.CpmiGrcInterpreter
17/01/26 15:23:43,355 ERROR mgmt_blade.objects.DomainUtils [upgradeTaskExecutor-5]: Failed to check if we are in SMC or MDS java.lang.InterruptedException
at java.lang.Object.waitImpl(Native Method)
at java.lang.Object.wait(Object.java:248)
at java.lang.Object.wait(Object.java:187)
at java.lang.UNIXProcess.waitFor(UNIXProcess.java:441)
at com.checkpoint.management.mgmt_blade.objects.DomainUtils.isMultiDomain(DomainUtils.java:17)
at com.checkpoint.objects.compliance.CpmiGrcInterpreterMirrorFactory.shouldMirror(CpmiGrcInterpreterMirrorFactory.java:488)
at com.checkpoint.management.dleserver.coresvc.internal.mirror.MirrorObjectManager.createMirrorMessage_aroundBody16(MirrorObjectManager.java:516)
at com.checkpoint.management.dleserver.coresvc.internal.mirror.MirrorObjectManager$AjcClosure17.run(MirrorObjectManager.java:1)
at org.springframework.transaction.aspectj.AbstractTransactionAspect.ajc$around$org_springframework_transaction_aspectj_AbstractTransactionAspect$1$2a73e96cproceed(AbstractTransactionAspect.aj:67)
at org.springframework.transaction.aspectj.AbstractTransactionAspect$AbstractTransactionAspect$1.proceedWithInvocation(AbstractTransactionAspect.aj:73)
at org.springframework.transaction.interceptor.TransactionAspectSupport.invokeWithinTransaction(TransactionAspectSupport.java:388)
at org.springframework.transaction.aspectj.AbstractTransactionAspect.ajc$around$org_springframework_transaction_aspectj_AbstractTransactionAspect$1$2a73e96c(AbstractTransactionAspect.aj:71)
at com.checkpoint.management.dleserver.coresvc.internal.mirror.MirrorObjectManager.createMirrorMessage_aroundBody18(MirrorObjectManager.java:416)
at com.checkpoint.management.dleserver.coresvc.internal.mirror.MirrorObjectManager$AjcClosure19.run(MirrorObjectManager.java:1)
at org.aspectj.runtime.reflect.JoinPointImpl.proceed(JoinPointImpl.java:149)
cpm=# select objid, name, domainid, tsdata, tsfacet from dleobjectderef_data where objid = '60b15fda-5bb0-4f60-969e-9207efeb6d32';
objid | name | domainid | tsdata | tsfacet
--------------------------------------+-----------------+--------------------------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60b15fda-5bb0-4f60-969e-9207efeb6d32 | grc_interpreter | e644a839-573c-4c56-a9c2-44ecdf5acfff | 'grc':1A 'interpreter':2A | 'domainid.e644a839-573c-4c56-a9c2-44ecdf5acfff' 'systemTags.ea7f217a-3224-4bfc-9a21-8ab70e4478c3'
(1 row)
17/01/26 15:22:00,790 INFO internal.mirror.MirrorObjectManager [taskExecutor-477]: Updated mirror object id com.checkpoint.objects.threat_prevention.SimplifiedThreatPolicyMirror CheckPointObject{metaInfo=com.checkpoint.management.dlecommon.ngm_api.MetaInfoForTopLevel@12dc4f8d, featuresPreset=null, features=[], tags=[], systemTags=[], actions=[], dynamicFeatures=null} {name='FirewallPolicyA', objId='18399135-1cc0-42ff-a305-9281c2815c46', domain='NULL'}, mirrorMessage bc38043a-acbd-4233-915c-c0a90a60275e
17/01/26 15:22:00,791 INFO coresvc.internal.NewUpgradeManagerImpl [taskExecutor-477]: Looking for appContext for domain 9a75368d-5d72-4fbc-9102-98ff2c44d34e
17/01/26 15:22:00,795 ERROR internal.operation.OperationSvcImpl [upgradeTaskExecutor-3]: caught exception "HV000028: Unexpected exception during isValid call." from class javax.validation.ValidationException javax.validation.ValidationException: HV000028: Unexpected exception during isValid call.
at org.hibernate.validator.internal.engine.constraintvalidation.ConstraintTree.validateSingleConstraint(ConstraintTree.java:286)
at org.hibernate.validator.internal.engine.constraintvalidation.ConstraintTree.validateConstraints(ConstraintTree.java:133)
at org.hibernate.validator.internal.engine.constraintvalidation.ConstraintTree.validateConstraints(ConstraintTree.java:91)
at org.hibernate.validator.internal.metadata.core.MetaConstraint.validateConstraint(MetaConstraint.java:84)
at org.hibernate.validator.internal.engine.ValidatorImpl.validateConstraint(ValidatorImpl.java:525)
at org.hibernate.validator.internal.engine.ValidatorImpl.validateConstraintsForNonDefaultGroup(ValidatorImpl.java:489)
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Did verification suceed?
Andy
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Without this, it would not work, so yes, it did succeed
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Did TAC suggest anything yet?
Andy
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
It's with R&D now. Seems like a bigger issue.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Please keep us posted. But yes, I do agree, if its with R&D, seems like a bigger problem.
Andy
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Hey,
Any luck with this?
Andy
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Still waiting for a solution from RD.


