Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] RDMA/CMA: Mark IPv4 addresses correctly when the listener is IPv6

Or Gerlitz
2015-04-20T18:38:02Z

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
<jgunthorpe-ePGOBjL8dl3ta4EC/59zMFaTQe2KTcn/@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:03:32PM +0300, Haggai Eran wrote:
>> From: Yotam Kenneth <yotamke-VPRAkNaXOzVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
>>
>> When accepting a new connection with the listener being IPv6, the
>> family of the new connection is set as IPv6. This causes cma_zero_addr
>> function to return true on an non-zero address. As a result, the wrong
>> code path is taken. This causes the connection request to be rejected,
>> as the RDMA-CM code looks for the wrong type of device.
>
> This description doesn't really make sense as to what the problem is.
>
>> @@ -866,12 +866,12 @@ static void cma_save_ip4_info(struct rdma_cm_id *id, struct rdma_cm_id *listen_i
>>
>> listen4 = (struct sockaddr_in *) &listen_id->route.addr.src_addr;
>> ip4 = (struct sockaddr_in *) &id->route.addr.src_addr;
>> - ip4->sin_family = listen4->sin_family;
>> + ip4->sin_family = AF_INET;
>
> If listen_id->route.addr.src_addr.ss_family != AF_INET then it is
> invalid to cast to sockaddr_in.
>
> So listen4->sin_family MUST be AF_INET or this function MUST NOT be
> called.
>
> Forcing to AF_INET cannot be correct here.

Jason, could you take a look @ this thread
http://marc.info/?t=141589395000004&r=1&w=2 where the authors
addressed some comments from Sean and he eventually Acked the patch?

> What does this patch have to do with this series?

I believe it's either a pre-patch to address some assumption or
something they stepped on while testing

Or.