Re: 319554f284dd ("inet: don't use sk_v6_rcv_saddr directly") causes bind port regression

[Chuck Ebbert <cebbert.lkml@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 17:28:25 +0000
Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com> wrote:

> Sorry I thought I had made this other fix, can you apply this on top
> of the other one and try that?  I have more things to try if this
> doesn’t work, sorry you are playing go between, but I want to make
> sure I know _which_ fix actually fixes the problem, and then clean up
> in followup patches.  Thanks,
> 
> Josef
> 
> On 9/13/17, 8:45 AM, "Laura Abbott" <labbott@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On 09/12/2017 04:12 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > First I’m super sorry for the top post, I’m at plumbers and I
> > forgot to upload my muttrc to my new cloud instance, so I’m screwed
> > using outlook.
> > 
> > I have a completely untested, uncompiled patch that I think will
> > fix the problem, would you mind giving it a go?  Thanks,
> > 
> > Josef  
> 
> Thanks for the quick turnaround. Unfortunately, the problem is still
> reproducible according to the reporter.
> 
> Thanks,
> Laura

I am confused by the patch that originally caused this:

        if (sk->sk_family == AF_INET6)
                return ipv6_rcv_saddr_equal(&sk->sk_v6_rcv_saddr,
-                                           &sk2->sk_v6_rcv_saddr,
+                                           inet6_rcv_saddr(sk2),
                                            sk->sk_rcv_saddr,
                                            sk2->sk_rcv_saddr,

Shouldn't the first argument also be changed to use inet6_rcv_saddr()?