Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:47:50 -0400 | From | Chuck Ebbert <> | Subject | Re: 319554f284dd ("inet: don't use sk_v6_rcv_saddr directly") causes bind port regression |
| |
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()?
| |