On Mar 30, 2009, at 6:17 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 15:32 -0700, Chuck Lever wrote:We are about to convert to using separate RPC listener sockets for AF_INET and AF_INET6. This echoes the way IPv6 is handled in user space by TI-RPC, and eliminates the need to worry about mapped IPv4 AF_INET6 addresses when doing address comparisons. Start by setting the IPV6ONLY flag on RPC listener sockets. Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> --- net/sunrpc/svcsock.c | 10 ++++------ 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c index d00bc33..ac6cd65 100644 --- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c +++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c @@ -1144,13 +1144,11 @@ static struct svc_sock *svc_setup_socket(struct svc_serv *serv, svc_tcp_init(svsk, serv); /* - * We start one listener per sv_serv. We want AF_INET - * requests to be automatically shunted to our PF_INET6 - * listener using a mapped IPv4 address. Make sure - * no-one starts an equivalent IPv4 listener, which - * would steal our incoming connections. + * If this is a PF_INET6 listener, we want to avoid + * getting requests from IPv4 remotes. Those should + * be shunted to a PF_INET listener via rpcbind. */ - val = 0; + val = 1; if (inet->sk_family == PF_INET6)AF_INET6...
As far as I can tell PF_INET6 and AF_INET6 are interchangeable here. I can find examples of sk_family being set to or compared to either, and I think they always have the same value. So it's really just a style preference?
...and this should probably be set before we bind the socket...
Yes, that's probably correct. I hadn't encountered EADDRINUSE in my testing.
Should I send you a fix, or do you have one in mind already?
kernel_setsockopt(sock, SOL_IPV6, IPV6_V6ONLY, (char *)&val, sizeof(val));
-- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
