On 23/06/15 06:12, Lidong Zhong wrote:
>>>> On 6/18/2015 at 10:03 PM, in message <5582CFA1.1040105@xxxxxxxxxx>, Christine
> Caulfield <ccaulfie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 18/06/15 03:20, Lidong Zhong wrote:
>>> Hi Christine,
>>>
>>> Any news about this patch?
>>>
>>
>> Hi Lidong,
>>
> Hi Christine,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
>> I'm afraid I'm going to have to NAK it. Although it technically matches
>> the man page, it breaks existing behaviour (the ability to bind to a
>> host IP address) and that behaviour is also valid in corosync 2. If you
>> can come up with a patch that allows that behaviour AND fixes this
>> problem then I'll he happy to review it.
>>
> I think the condition you described here has already been considered in the original logic.
> The code is here
> 611 if (tb[IFA_LOCAL]) {
> 612 memcpy(ipaddr.addr, RTA_DATA(tb[IFA_LOCAL]), TOTEMIP_ADDRLEN);
> 613 if (totemip_equal(&ipaddr, bindnet)) {
> 614 found_if = 1;
> 615 exact_match_found = 1;
> 616 }
> 617 }
> Then it will check if the bindnetwork address with netmask.
>
You are correct, I took the time to test it today :)
It's been such a long time since that code was looked at, I'd forgotten
how that bit worked.
I'll check it into the flatiron branch, but it's unlikely to make RHEL
unless there's a compelling bugzilla to go with it.
Thanks for being persistent and patient.
Chrissie
> Regards,
> Lidong
>
>> Sorry for delay in responding, I was away for a while.
>>
>> Chrissie
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Lidong
>>>
>>>>>> On 5/15/2015 at 09:52 AM, in
>>>> message
>>> <5555C1E0020000E100024737@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Lidong
>>>> Zhong"
>>> <lzhong@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2015 at 08:23 PM, in message
>>>> <555493A5.6070004@xxxxxxxxxx>, Christine
>>>> Caulfield <ccaulfie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 14/05/15 06:36, Lidong Zhong wrote:
>>>>>> For instance, the IPs are:
>>>>>> eth0: 10.150.10.81/8
>>>>>> eth1: 10.150.10.91/24
>>>>>> The bindnetaddr in corosync is: 10.150.10.0 and the addr of eth1 is
>>>>>> selected in UDPU mode. Then the bindto address probably mistakenly choose
>>>>>> the addr of eth0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hiya,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the patch but I'm not convinced it's the right thing to do
>>>>> for all situations. If the bindnet_addr is set to an actual IP address
>>>>> and not a subnet mask then it will fail I think. What does your
>>>>> corosync.conf look like?
>>>>>
>>>> Hi Chrissie,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your reply. The full corosync.conf is attached below.
>>>> As the man page says, the bindnetaddr always is the local interface ip
>>>> with netmask. It should be a full ip address only in IPv6 case. And I think
>>
>>>> there
>>>> is no problem for the current code to handle IPv6 address.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Lidong
>>>>
>>>>> Chrissie
>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lidong Zhong <lzhong@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> exec/totemip.c | 2 +-
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/exec/totemip.c b/exec/totemip.c
>>>>>> index ab175a8..c1fa800 100644
>>>>>> --- a/exec/totemip.c
>>>>>> +++ b/exec/totemip.c
>>>>>> @@ -626,7 +626,7 @@ int totemip_iface_check(struct totem_ip_address
>>>>> *bindnet,
>>>>>> memcpy(&network, RTA_DATA(tb[IFA_LOCAL]), sizeof(uint32_t));
>>>>>> memcpy(&addr, bindnet->addr, sizeof(uint32_t));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - if ((addr & netmask) == (network & netmask)) {
>>>>>> + if (addr == (network & netmask)) {
>>>>>> memcpy(ipaddr.addr, RTA_DATA(tb[IFA_ADDRESS]), TOTEMIP_ADDRLEN);
>>>>>> found_if = 1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> discuss mailing list
>>>>> discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
