On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 01:30:14PM +0100, Alexander Aring wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 03:30:54AM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 02:32:54PM +0100, Alexander Aring wrote:
> > > Hi Hannes,
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 01:44:40PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 05:39:04AM +0100, Alexander Aring wrote:
> > > > > The correct way to check on IPV6_ADDR_SCOPE_LINKLOCAL is to check with
> > > > > the ipv6_addr_src_scope function.
> > > > >
> > > > > Currently this can't be work, because ipv6_addr_scope returns a int with
> > > > > a mask of IPV6_ADDR_SCOPE_MASK (0x00f0U) and IPV6_ADDR_SCOPE_LINKLOCAL
> > > > > is 0x02. So the condition is always false.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > I think ipv6_addr_src_scope should be correct, can somebody from netdev ml
> > > > > confirm this please?
> > > > > I stumple over that and I did not compile and test it. Maybe this is something
> > > > > for stable?
> > > > >
> > > > > fs/nfs/nfs4filelayoutdev.c | 2 +-
> > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4filelayoutdev.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4filelayoutdev.c
> > > > > index c7c295e5..efac602 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4filelayoutdev.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4filelayoutdev.c
> > > > > @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ same_sockaddr(struct sockaddr *addr1, struct sockaddr *addr2)
> > > > > b6 = (struct sockaddr_in6 *)addr2;
> > > > >
> > > > > /* LINKLOCAL addresses must have matching scope_id */
> > > > > - if (ipv6_addr_scope(&a6->sin6_addr) ==
> > > > > + if (ipv6_addr_src_scope(&a6->sin6_addr) ==
> > > > > IPV6_ADDR_SCOPE_LINKLOCAL &&
> > > > > a6->sin6_scope_id != b6->sin6_scope_id)
> > > > > return false;
> > > >
> > > > Good catch!
> > > >
> > > thanks.
> > >
> > > I am still unsure if sctp is correct or not, I think it isn't correct.
> > > Because we compare and don't check if any bit is set.
> > >
> > > We don't use IPV6_ADDR_SCOPE_TYPE here. We use IPV6_ADDR_TYPE. But we can't
> > > compare it.
> >
> > Actually, this is fine, too. ipv6_addr_scope does mask the addr_type with
> > IPV6_ADDR_SCOPE_MASK (which is 0x00f0U). If you look at addrconf_core.c you
> > see that the 4 bits stand by itself each time.
> >
> > Actually it seems ipv6_addr_src_scope is better suitable for multicast scope
> > handling and ipv6_addr_scope with IFA_{HOST,LINK,SITE} is fine for
> > non-multicast. In this case there is no difference.
> >
> ah thanks, now I understand it!
>
> so an alternative would be:
>
> if (ipv6_addr_scope(&a6->sin6_addr) & IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL &&
> a6->sin6_scope_id != b6->sin6_scope_id)
> ...
>
> maybe this is a little bit faster instead of ipv6_addr_src_scope.
> Should I resend a v2 with the faster solution?
Yes, please do so. Thanks!
> > Maybe an int ipv6_cmp_sockaddr(struct in6_addr *a1, int scope1,
> > struct in6_addr *a2, int scope2)
> > or
> > int ipv6_cmp_sockaddr(struct sockaddr_in6 *s1,
> > struct sockaddr_in6 *s2)
> >
>
> I don't understand why we need such a function here. We only check if
> "a6" is linklocal and has a different sin6_scope_id than "b6" sin6_scope_id
> and we don't compare "a6" and "b6" here (then "b6" should be a
> linklocal, too). I think it's too abstract for me what exactly "compare"
> means in this case. :-)
That were exactly the semantics I had in mind. Something like
ipv6_equal_sockaddr would be a better name, you are right.
Trying to sort ipv6 addresses depends on the specific code and I would
leave that open-coded in the specific case.
Greetings,
Hannes
--
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
