On Mar 30, 2009, at 6:37 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Mon, 2009-03-30 at 18:28 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
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?
Technically, one is a protocol family, and one is an address family.
They just happen to be defined to take the same numerical values.
Yes. Sockets use protocol families, and sockaddrs use address
families, AFAICT. So PF_INET6 is correct in this case, I would think.
But it's pretty inconsistent. socket(2) returns EAFNOSUPPORT even
though it takes a protocol family argument, for example.
...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));
I'm testing a fix right now...
OK.
--
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
