On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:29:46AM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > On Fri, 2018-04-27 at 16:32 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > + /* From FreeBSD's inet6(4): > > > + * > > > + * By default, FreeBSD does not route IPv4 traffic to AF_INET6 > > > + * sockets. The default behavior intentionally violates RFC2553 > > > + * for security reasons. Listen to two sockets if you want to > > > + * accept both IPv4 and IPv6 traffic. > > > + * > > > + * So this test will never work on FreeBSD, and need to skip it. */ > > > > This code is not supposed to be relying on IPV6_V6ONLY. The testSocketTCPAccept > > method is supposed to create multiple listener sockets. We passing NULL as the > > listen address, which means we are supposed to get two sockets, one listening > > on IPv4 and one on IPv6. So the comment is right about FreeBSD being different > > but that situation should not apply to this test AFAIK. > > > > So I'm wondering why it hasn't listened on both sockets... > > Mh, you're right, the IPv6 thing was just a red herring: the test > case just seems to fail or succeed pretty much randomly. > > I tried compiling out everything but the basic "Socket TCP/IPv4 > Accept" part, and even that didn't manage to run successfully for > any extended lenght of time in a tight loop. > > I'm afraid we're going to need someone with more network expertise > than I have to look into it. This kind of nastiness usually requires an strace log (or whatever BSD equiv is) to diagnose. I've got a BSD VM I can try on Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
