Your message dated Tue, 15 Oct 2002 21:38:53 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#164768: libc: IPv6 still not correct.
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Oct 2002 23:56:06 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 14 18:56:05 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from plum.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.3]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 181F48-0007zN-00; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:56:04 -0500
Received: from rapun.sel.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.232.108] ident=mail)
by plum.csi.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.10)
id 181F47-0008KJ-00
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 00:56:03 +0100
Received: from matthew by rapun.sel.cam.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 181F47-0002cm-00; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 00:56:03 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 00:56:03 +0100
From: Matthew Vernon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: libc: IPv6 still not correct.
X-Mailer: VM 7.03 under Emacs 21.2.1
X-Debbugs-CC: Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Matthew Vernon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Package: libc6
Version: 2.2.5-11.2
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Hi,
This bug was in fact once #82468 (now archived), but having checked
the libc code (and retried the test case), it still exists (and so
really needs fixing.
Executive summary: libc uses an incorrectly-sized sockaddr_in6
structure, which causes programs running under 2.2 kernels to get
error messages when in fact they are behving correctly. Hence the
important severity.
A 2.2 kernel uses:
struct sockaddr_in6 {
unsigned short int sin6_family; /* AF_INET6 */
__u16 sin6_port; /* Transport layer port # */
__u32 sin6_flowinfo; /* IPv6 flow information */
struct in6_addr sin6_addr; /* IPv6 address */
};
While 2.4 (and glibc complies) use:
struct sockaddr_in6 {
unsigned short int sin6_family; /* AF_INET6 */
__u16 sin6_port; /* Transport layer port # */
__u32 sin6_flowinfo; /* IPv6 flow information */
struct in6_addr sin6_addr; /* IPv6 address */
__u32 sin6_scope_id; /* scope id (new in RFC2553) */
};
getpeername returns the kernel's idea of a sockaddr_in6 when using an
ipv6 socket. Now getnameinfo has the following code
case AF_INET6:
if (addrlen < sizeof (struct sockaddr_in6))
return EAI_FAMILY;
in which the sizeof uses the libc idea of an sockaddr_in6...
Test code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <netdb.h>
int
main(int argc, char **argv) {
int sockfd;
struct addrinfo req,*ans;
struct sockaddr_storage tmp;
int len = sizeof(struct sockaddr_storage);
memset(&req,0,sizeof(req));
req.ai_flags = 0;
req.ai_family = PF_INET6;
req.ai_socktype = SOCK_STREAM;
req.ai_protocol =IPPROTO_TCP;
if (getaddrinfo("spacelabs.nl","smtp",&req,&ans) != 0) {
printf("getaddrinfo failed\n");
return -1;
}
sockfd = socket(ans->ai_family,ans->ai_socktype,ans->ai_protocol);
if (connect(sockfd,ans->ai_addr,ans->ai_addrlen) < 0) {
printf("connect failed\n");
return -1;
}
if (getpeername(sockfd,(struct sockaddr *) &tmp,&len) < 0) {
printf("getpeernamed failed\n");
return -1;
}
printf("getpeername len -> %d, sizeof(sockaddr_in6) -> %d\n",
len, sizeof(struct sockaddr_in6));
exit(0);
}
Running this on a current stable libc with 2.2 kernel gives:
getpeername len -> 24, sizeof(sockaddr_in6) -> 28
whilst with a 2.4 kernel, one gets:
getpeername len -> 28, sizeof(sockaddr_in6) -> 28
Now this is a problem if you do, for example:
int
get_sock_port(int sock, int local)
{
struct sockaddr_storage from;
socklen_t fromlen;
char strport[NI_MAXSERV];
/* Get IP address of client. */
fromlen = sizeof(from);
memset(&from, 0, sizeof(from));
if (local) {
if (getsockname(sock, (struct sockaddr *)&from, &fromlen) < 0) {
error("getsockname failed: %.100s", strerror(errno));
return 0;
}
} else {
if (getpeername(sock, (struct sockaddr *) & from, &fromlen) < 0)
{
debug("getpeername failed: %.100s", strerror(errno));
fatal_cleanup();
}
}
/* Return port number. */
if (getnameinfo((struct sockaddr *)&from, fromlen, NULL, 0,
strport, sizeof(strport), NI_NUMERICSERV) != 0)
fatal("get_sock_port: getnameinfo NI_NUMERICSERV failed");
return atoi(strport);
}
[code from SSH] getnameinfo barfs at this point on a 2.2 kernel.
Now, a fix to libc might be:
--- glibc-2.2.5/inet/getnameinfo.c Tue Jan 30 00:23:05 2001
+++ glibc-2.2.5-fix/inet/getnameinfo.c Sun Aug 4 01:15:42 2002
@@ -62,6 +62,13 @@
# define min(x,y) (((x) > (y)) ? (y) : (x))
#endif /* min */
+struct __sockaddr_in6_rfc2133
+ {
+ __SOCKADDR_COMMON (__sin6_);
+ in_port_t __sin6_port;
+ uint32_t __sin6_flowinfo;
+ struct in6_addr __sin6_addr;
+ };
static char *
internal_function
@@ -193,7 +200,7 @@
return EAI_FAMILY;
break;
case AF_INET6:
- if (addrlen < sizeof (struct sockaddr_in6))
+ if (addrlen < sizeof (struct __sockaddr_in6_rfc2133))
return EAI_FAMILY;
break;
default:
@@ -298,7 +305,8 @@
c = inet_ntop (AF_INET6,
(const void *) &sin6p->sin6_addr, host,
hostlen);
- scopeid = sin6p->sin6_scope_id;
+ scopeid = (addrlen >= sizeof(struct sockaddr_in6)) ?
+ sin6p->sin6_scope_id : 0;
if (scopeid != 0)
{
/* Buffer is >= IFNAMSIZ+1. */
For more information on this bug, please see
http://bugs.debian.org/82468
Thanks,
Matthew
--
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 164768-done) by bugs.debian.org; 16 Oct 2002 01:39:00 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 15 20:38:59 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from blowme.phunnypharm.org [65.207.35.140]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 181d9F-0007zR-00; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 20:38:57 -0500
Received: from hopper.phunnypharm.org ([192.168.0.13] ident=mail)
by blowme.phunnypharm.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 181d9E-0003vD-00; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 21:38:56 -0400
Received: from bmc by hopper.phunnypharm.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 181d9B-0005BT-00; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 21:38:53 -0400
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 21:38:53 -0400
From: Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Matthew Vernon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#164768: libc: IPv6 still not correct.
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-16.7 required=5.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,
SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,USER_AGENT,
USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 11:27:00AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Philip Blundell writes:
> > On Tue, 2002-10-15 at 00:56, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > > Executive summary: libc uses an incorrectly-sized sockaddr_in6
> > > structure, which causes programs running under 2.2 kernels to get
> > > error messages when in fact they are behving correctly. Hence the
> > > important severity.
> >
> > >From what you describe, I don't think there is anything incorrect about
> > the structure in glibc. If the 2.2 kernel is returning the wrong thing,
> > that is what should be fixed.
>
> With respect, I think you misunderstand. The kernel defines what the
> structure should be, and returns it accordingly. It is the job of the
> libc to hide this from the programmer; especially when the structure
> in question changes over time in the kernel (quite legitimately).
No, he understands perfectly well. Fact is, 2.2. kernels were broken
with regard to ipv6 anyway, and supporting it just leaves the hacks in
place for longer. If you want proper ipv6, use 2.4.x kernels.
That's why this patch isn't in glibc upstream, and why it will never be
in debian either.
Closing this bug report (again).
--
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
