On Tue, 2014-10-28 at 06:10 -0600, Glenn Golden wrote: > Tanu Kaskinen <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com> [2014-10-28 11:20:08 +0200]: > > On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 00:49 -0500, Hajime Fujita wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I'm currently working on IPv6 support for the raop module [1]. > > > > > > During the work I found a potential issue in > > > pa_socket_client_new_string() (in pulsecore/socket-client.c) as pointed > > > out in [1]. > > > > > > It does not work as expected when an IPv6 address string like > > > "2001:db8::1" is passed as the "name" parameter. This is because the > > > name parameter is passed to pa_parse_address(), which thinks the last > > > colon as a separator between hostname (or address) and a port number. To > > > prevent pa_parse_address() from doing this, an IPv6 address must be > > > bracketed with "[]" (e.g. "[2001:db8::1]"). > > > > > > I'm wondering what would be the best solution for this situation. > > > a. Modify callers: callers of pa_socket_client_new_string() must add > > > brackets to IPv6 addresses. > > > b. Modify pa_socket_client_new_string(): if an IPv6 address is given as > > > the name parameter, it will be bracketed before being passed to > > > pa_parse_address(). > > > > > > Any opinions or suggestions? > > > > I think it makes more sense to fix this in the callers of > > pa_socket_client_new_string(). It would be good to also add a comment in > > socket-client.h saying that the name parameter can include also the port > > using the usual syntax, and for that reason IPv6 addresses must be > > enclosed in brackets. > > > > This is kind of a vague comment/question, but I'll ask anyway: Is there any > potential here for simplification/standardization/enforcement of a canonical > syntax for PA server addressing to be used throughout the PA libs and at > the user level? > > The above bracketed IPv6 syntax seems (naively to me, anyway) to perhaps be > an superfluous variation on the user-level server string syntax described in > > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/PulseAudio/Documentation/User/ServerStrings In what way is it superfluous? The bracketed syntax for IPv6 to separate the IP address from the port is standard (and should be mentioned in the parsing rules on that wiki page too, if the parser in PulseAudio checks whether the IP address is bracketed (I didn't check whether that's the case, but I'd expect so)). > Additionally, judging from actual PA behavior (5.0), the libs are presently > not performing any syntax checking on user-supplied server strings anyway, > e.g. see > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83657 > > What I'm getting at: Since this issue looks like it's getting some attention > now, might it make sense to think about a cleanup that enforces a single > unified syntax for both user- and API-internal server specification strings, > and hence the possibility of a single routine that validates them (hence > contributing to a future fix for the above ticket)? > > Again, this comment may not even make sense due to my unfamiliarity with the > big picture, just trying to supply a useful thought, since Hajime had asked > for opinions and suggestions. As far as I can tell, the issue that Hajime had was not about PulseAudio server strings but addresses used to refer to a remote RAOP server. Given that, do you still think there would be need for some unification? -- Tanu
