On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:17:56AM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 01:17:28PM +0000, David Laight wrote: > > From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner > > > Sent: 22 June 2020 19:33 > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:01:24PM +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote: > > > > > On 22. Jun 2020, at 18:57, Corey Minyard <minyard@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 08:01:23PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > > > > >> On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 11:56 PM Corey Minyard <minyard@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I've stumbled upon a strange problem with SCTP and IPv6. If I create an > > > > >>> sctp listening socket on :: and set the IPV6_V6ONLY socket option on it, > > > > >>> then I make a connection to it using ::1, the connection will drop after > > > > >>> 2.5 seconds with an ECONNRESET error. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> It only happens on SCTP, it doesn't have the issue if you connect to a > > > > >>> full IPv6 address instead of ::1, and it doesn't happen if you don't > > > > >>> set IPV6_V6ONLY. I have verified current end of tree kernel.org. > > > > >>> I tried on an ARM system and x86_64. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I haven't dug into the kernel to see if I could find anything yet, but I > > > > >>> thought I would go ahead and report it. I am attaching a reproducer. > > > > >>> Basically, compile the following code: > > > > >> The code only set IPV6_V6ONLY on server side, so the client side will > > > > >> still bind all the local ipv4 addresses (as you didn't call bind() to > > > > >> bind any specific addresses ). Then after the connection is created, > > > > >> the client will send HB on the v4 paths to the server. The server > > > > >> will abort the connection, as it can't support v4. > > > > >> > > > > >> So you can work around it by either: > > > > >> > > > > >> - set IPV6_V6ONLY on client side. > > > > >> > > > > >> or > > > > >> > > > > >> - bind to the specific v6 addresses on the client side. > > > > >> > > > > >> I don't see RFC said something about this. > > > > >> So it may not be a good idea to change the current behaviour > > > > >> to not establish the connection in this case, which may cause regression. > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I understand this. It's a little strange, but I see why it works > > > > > this way. > > > > I don't. I would expect it to work as I described in my email. > > > > Could someone explain me how and why it is behaving different from > > > > my expectation? > > > > > > It looks like a bug to me. Testing with this test app here, I can see > > > the INIT_ACK being sent with a bunch of ipv4 addresses in it and > > > that's unexpected for a v6only socket. As is, it's the server saying > > > "I'm available at these other addresses too, but not." > > > > Does it even make sense to mix IPv4 and IPv6 addresses on the same > > connection? > > I don't remember ever seeing both types of address in a message, > > but may not have looked. > > That's an interesting question. Do the RFCs say anything? I would > assume it was ok unless ipv6only was set. > > > > > I also wonder whether the connection should be dropped for an error > > response on a path that has never been validated. > > That actually bothered me a bit more. Shouldn't it stay up if any path > is up? That's kind of the whole point of multihoming. Michael explained it on the other email. What he described is what I observed in my tests. > > > > > OTOH the whole 'multi-homing' part of SCTP sucks. > > I don't think so. > > > The IP addresses a server needs to bind to depend on where the > > incoming connection will come from. > > A local connection may be able to use a 192.168.x.x address > > but a remote connection must not - as it may be defined locally > > at the remote system. > > But both connections can come into the public (routable) address. > > We have to tell customers to explicitly configure the local IP > > addresses - which means the application has to know what they are. > > Fortunately these apps are pretty static - usually M3UA. > > Umm, no, If you have a private address, it better be behind a firewall, > and the firewall should handle rewriting the packet to fix the addresses. > > It doesn't appear that Linux netfilter does this. There is a TODO in > the code for this. But that's how it *should* work. Right, we don't support SCTP aware NAT [1]. 1.https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stewart-behave-sctpnat-04 Marcelo > > -corey > > > > > David > > > > - > > Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK > > Registration No: 1397386 (Wales) > >
