From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49FF22CA0 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 09:45:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1640079938; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=MDdPmI+EDeFFV/q0mgmcp2MZ0ZDT0jyI3Q1Wh+i4BuY=; b=h2mfNu9Sa6pwFyCptaTOqbPjnj4E/F4zTm6P11B+aVJQ9oSONmf0G+tZCpb1TQDvP4HLDa KWZ94sSYqL8SY6bsF45Dwr78aJCMqfPF2ZWr23JTLVvRvaSWeGWw7Bj2ZrXQVWNE61LqlY TrMX+4b8hh6mpmP5tcR74mWRHNk9xu4= Received: from mail-wm1-f71.google.com (mail-wm1-f71.google.com [209.85.128.71]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-145-4xP7YYMxMCSZLUdEaJMjFA-1; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 04:45:37 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 4xP7YYMxMCSZLUdEaJMjFA-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f71.google.com with SMTP id 205-20020a1c00d6000000b003335d1384f1so1028547wma.3 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 01:45:36 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MDdPmI+EDeFFV/q0mgmcp2MZ0ZDT0jyI3Q1Wh+i4BuY=; b=GnEzG1AtAx37uWxkCAKpj1lKPZsjWnm84xnJ9VlQSsagH25mp0+hNUnOAxBKbCG9fs ViSA79CjjiSDH84DTVshqd6eV5d4Ev+UsjUiX9qCwu6jT+zONvg0ApusQIfaIcmdeXfY uweGFtGoc/QJe7IMVUn1ODqxo8yCw+IUbauxHHC6r8bgWu3t9SjhkyTJtnP9aCBUdrlj dW/I1kEiDqrSJx9C7azPXuJTtHKwL9BtzHghbSLAZ4KjMhl8JlfA9IBM7HPbCio3ltnL mfi6TS53oYJWJvD289YrBKqppTpqmlIA6+l/JYP+i54SNfjJPuusrjB2XZcO/VFNg15K pahg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ECLNPHa1EB3TQewIKwV+JowjjiKmZWo65bkkLjcS5kjNWiCXU wgnWlZai585gS+HoqVby1dOacW8+wLTzLvuTEeBtSYfMhc61wcwUcjq73Ptasw4uHoet9Xoc+ZB 9UphjmW2j/bzpkac= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6d0a:: with SMTP id e10mr1860875wrq.327.1640079935845; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 01:45:35 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzZ7JQnbE9Kj7mzhfg6grfEx+Z1ChceWFXBedHdyF71HGxaUHrr1skDxxz1F/+1sL085w8YXQ== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6d0a:: with SMTP id e10mr1860863wrq.327.1640079935600; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 01:45:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from gerbillo.redhat.com (146-241-225-60.dyn.eolo.it. [146.241.225.60]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r1sm10880031wrz.30.2021.12.21.01.45.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 21 Dec 2021 01:45:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <0c44a4f2371ca515edce8ba67f60778f9c990cb9.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH mptcp-next 07/21] mptcp: netlink: process IPv6 addrs in creating listening sockets From: Paolo Abeni To: Kishen Maloor , Matthieu Baerts , mptcp@lists.linux.dev Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 10:45:34 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20211216222314.1244708-1-kishen.maloor@intel.com> <20211216222314.1244708-8-kishen.maloor@intel.com> User-Agent: Evolution 3.42.2 (3.42.2-1.fc35) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: mptcp@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=pabeni@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2021-12-20 at 23:32 -0800, Kishen Maloor wrote: > On 12/17/21 8:29 AM, Matthieu Baerts wrote: > > Hi Kishen, > > > > On 16/12/2021 23:23, Kishen Maloor wrote: > > > This change updates mptcp_pm_nl_create_listen_socket() to create > > > listening sockets bound to IPv6 addresses (where IPv6 is supported). > > > > Should we consider this as a bug? > > We could I suppose, at least for lack of completeness. But you're right that we've > now updated the behavior in this series in attempting to create listening sockets (lsks) > corresponding to every announcement, which necessitates this handling of > IPv6 addresses. > > But prior to this series: > -lsk creation (through a subflow's port) did not happen in the kernel under the assumption > that MPTCP server applications would've established a listener, > -lsks were created only for port-based endpoints which (I believe) would not work with > IPv6 (lack of option space), and, > -the stack did not allow incoming MP_JOINs at machines running MPTCP client > applications (with this series, subflows can be established from either end so there > needs to be an lsk). Could you please elaborate more this last point? If the stack does not allow the latter, it's definitely a bug. The port-based endpoint implementation was aimed [also] at that goal. Thanks! Paolo