Send connman mailing list submissions to
connman@lists.01.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or
body 'help' to
connman-requ...@lists.01.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
connman-ow...@lists.01.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of connman digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [PATCH 06/11] network: Adopt to new IPv6 disabled functionality of
ipconfig.c
(Jussi Laakkonen)
2. Re: [PATCH 05/11] ipconfig: Add forced disabling of IPv6 and support IPv6
method restore
(Jussi Laakkonen)
3. Re: [PATCH 06/11] network: Adopt to new IPv6 disabled functionality of
ipconfig.c
(Daniel Wagner)
4. Re: [PATCH 05/11] ipconfig: Add forced disabling of IPv6 and support IPv6
method restore
(Daniel Wagner)
5. Re: [PATCH 06/11] network: Adopt to new IPv6 disabled functionality of
ipconfig.c
(Jussi Laakkonen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 16:07:42 +0300
From: Jussi Laakkonen <jussi.laakko...@jolla.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] network: Adopt to new IPv6 disabled
functionality of ipconfig.c
To: Daniel Wagner <w...@monom.org>
Cc: connman@lists.01.org
Message-ID: <3504b9d6-aeb1-734c-01cb-f6555c2e7...@jolla.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Hi Daniel,
On 4/5/21 5:20 PM, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 05:46:13PM +0300, Jussi Laakkonen wrote:
>> @@ -898,7 +900,8 @@ static void autoconf_ipv6_set(struct connman_network
>> *network)
>>
>> __connman_ipconfig_enable(ipconfig);
>>
>> - __connman_ipconfig_enable_ipv6(ipconfig);
>> + if (__connman_ipconfig_enable_ipv6(ipconfig))
>> + return;
>
> Maybe we should disable the ipconfig if this fails?
>
I'm not sure about that, it might be unnecessary? As, for example, that
autoconf_ipv6_set() is called when either DHCPv6 callback gets triggered
or when calling __connman_network_enable_ipconfig(), which already
disables IPv6 on ipconfig if not internally supported,. DHCPv6 shouldn't
be running when IPv6 is disabled.
But there is the case when the ipdevice does not exist.. But I cannot
figure out a scenario where that could happen. If you have something in
mind I'll surely add disabling there, which just sets disable_ipv6 and
autoconf, that are already set I'd assume.
Cheers,
Jussi
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 16:09:33 +0300
From: Jussi Laakkonen <jussi.laakko...@jolla.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] ipconfig: Add forced disabling of IPv6 and
support IPv6 method restore
To: Daniel Wagner <w...@monom.org>
Cc: connman@lists.01.org
Message-ID: <9082ed86-7954-a1b0-5c54-e197bea82...@jolla.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Hi Daniel,
On 4/5/21 5:17 PM, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 05:46:12PM +0300, Jussi Laakkonen wrote:
>> When checking IPv6 enabled state return false if ipv6_force_disabled is
>> set as that is the real status of IPv6. The /proc disable_ipv6 can
>> change when kernel processes ICMPv6 (RA/RS) packets and brings the IPv6
>> interface up so using only the disable_ipv6 value is not consistent
>> enough in case when IPv6 has been forcefully disabled.
>
> I am struggling understanding this paragraph. The first sentence is a
> bit hard to grasp.
>
I'll edit this and send a v2. Thanks for focusing on commit messages as
well!
>> This change will prevent from changing the IPv6 status until it has
>> it has been forcefully enabled, until that -EOPNOSUPP is returned.
>> The most prominent use case for this is to prevent data as well as DNS
>> leak to IPv6 when IPv4 only VPN is connected over a transport supporting
>> both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity.
>>
>> In addition to changing disable_ipv6 value also the autoconf option is
>> managed.
>
> Just as side note, ConnMan should drop using autoconf in future but this
> is for later.
I'll add a side note to the commit message of v2 on this matter as well.
I guess that is unnecessary when ConnMan deals with IPv6 by itself.
>
> Patch looks good. I'll test it.
>
Great!
Cheers,
Jussi
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 15:13:56 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <w...@monom.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] network: Adopt to new IPv6 disabled
functionality of ipconfig.c
To: Jussi Laakkonen <jussi.laakko...@jolla.com>
Cc: connman@lists.01.org
Message-ID: <20210406131356.2mnabuyznqwjr...@beryllium.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 04:07:42PM +0300, Jussi Laakkonen wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 4/5/21 5:20 PM, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 05:46:13PM +0300, Jussi Laakkonen wrote:
> > > @@ -898,7 +900,8 @@ static void autoconf_ipv6_set(struct connman_network
> > > *network)
> > > __connman_ipconfig_enable(ipconfig);
> > > - __connman_ipconfig_enable_ipv6(ipconfig);
> > > + if (__connman_ipconfig_enable_ipv6(ipconfig))
> > > + return;
> >
> > Maybe we should disable the ipconfig if this fails?
> >
>
> I'm not sure about that, it might be unnecessary? As, for example, that
> autoconf_ipv6_set() is called when either DHCPv6 callback gets triggered or
> when calling __connman_network_enable_ipconfig(), which already disables
> IPv6 on ipconfig if not internally supported,. DHCPv6 shouldn't be running
> when IPv6 is disabled.
>
> But there is the case when the ipdevice does not exist.. But I cannot figure
> out a scenario where that could happen. If you have something in mind I'll
> surely add disabling there, which just sets disable_ipv6 and autoconf, that
> are already set I'd assume.
I was talking about the __connman_ipconfig_enable() right above this
code snippet. If we bail out of this function the ipv4 ipconfig will be
enabled. This strikes me as odd, haven't really thought it through.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 15:16:36 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <w...@monom.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] ipconfig: Add forced disabling of IPv6 and
support IPv6 method restore
To: Jussi Laakkonen <jussi.laakko...@jolla.com>
Cc: connman@lists.01.org
Message-ID: <20210406131636.hyq5arta3inhs...@beryllium.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 04:09:33PM +0300, Jussi Laakkonen wrote:
> > Just as side note, ConnMan should drop using autoconf in future but this
> > is for later.
>
> I'll add a side note to the commit message of v2 on this matter as well. I
> guess that is unnecessary when ConnMan deals with IPv6 by itself.
Yes, that is my current understanding. We have to handle the full IPv6
stack in userspace, which is a bit sad. This splitted approach is
clearly very faulty as soon one tries to have multiple links.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 16:21:04 +0300
From: Jussi Laakkonen <jussi.laakko...@jolla.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] network: Adopt to new IPv6 disabled
functionality of ipconfig.c
To: Daniel Wagner <w...@monom.org>
Cc: connman@lists.01.org
Message-ID: <ed54fd38-135b-b7d0-1b2b-92d50d4c7...@jolla.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
On 4/6/21 4:13 PM, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 04:07:42PM +0300, Jussi Laakkonen wrote:
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> On 4/5/21 5:20 PM, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 05:46:13PM +0300, Jussi Laakkonen wrote:
>>>> @@ -898,7 +900,8 @@ static void autoconf_ipv6_set(struct connman_network
>>>> *network)
>>>> __connman_ipconfig_enable(ipconfig);
>>>> - __connman_ipconfig_enable_ipv6(ipconfig);
>>>> + if (__connman_ipconfig_enable_ipv6(ipconfig))
>>>> + return;
>>>
>>> Maybe we should disable the ipconfig if this fails?
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure about that, it might be unnecessary? As, for example, that
>> autoconf_ipv6_set() is called when either DHCPv6 callback gets triggered or
>> when calling __connman_network_enable_ipconfig(), which already disables
>> IPv6 on ipconfig if not internally supported,. DHCPv6 shouldn't be running
>> when IPv6 is disabled.
>>
>> But there is the case when the ipdevice does not exist.. But I cannot figure
>> out a scenario where that could happen. If you have something in mind I'll
>> surely add disabling there, which just sets disable_ipv6 and autoconf, that
>> are already set I'd assume.
>
> I was talking about the __connman_ipconfig_enable() right above this
> code snippet. If we bail out of this function the ipv4 ipconfig will be
> enabled. This strikes me as odd, haven't really thought it through.
>
I thought that the service can keep its IPv4 configuration. I did test
this with having a VPN connected over WiFi and then enabling mobile data
in the background. Mobile data is not going to get to be default service
over WiFi that is acting as the transport of the VPN. IPv6 remains
disabled for both but mobile data gets IPv4 so it can connect and remain
connected, and resume IPv6 when VPN is disconnected and all returns to
normal.
Should that then get disconnected if it does not get both IP-family
addresses it requests?
Cheers,
Jussi
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
connman mailing list -- connman@lists.01.org
To unsubscribe send an email to connman-le...@lists.01.org
------------------------------
End of connman Digest, Vol 66, Issue 7
**************************************
