Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2022 12:40:11 -0400 From: Chris Ross <cross+freebsd@distal.com> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-transport@freebsd.org Subject: Troubles with adding IPv6 support to a program Message-ID: <AFA64D16-9FE9-42BF-AB5B-732F474037AB@distal.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Tl;dr; I don=E2=80=99t know why I=E2=80=99m getting an EINVAL from a call to = bind for a second socket 20 years ago, I spent a lot of time adding IPv6 support to IPv4-only = programs. So I thought this (adding IPv6 support to simpleproxy[1]) would be an = easy project to pick up. I=E2=80=99ve gotten most of the framework in, = delayed only slightly when I learned that FreeBSD is =E2=80=9Cdifferent=E2=80=9D in = not routing IPv4 traffic to AF_INET6 sockets [2]. However, I=E2=80=99m getting an issue from one of my bind(2) calls that = I=E2=80=99m not able to figure out. I was hoping someone else had a few minutes to take a = quick look and help me find out what I=E2=80=99m doing wrong. A ~70 line relevant section of the source is at = https://justpaste.it/6u3jd The tl;dr; of this is that I: * getaddrinfo(NULL, portIwant) * for each address returned: * create a socket * setsockopt(SO_REUSEADDR) * bind * listen The first address I get is IPv6 localhost, and that binds and listens, = then continues to the next address. A new socket is created, setsockopt=E2=80=99= d, but bind for the second address (IPv4 localhost) fails with EINVAL. As you can see in the code shared, I have lots of debugging logs in the = code, and it looks like everything is as it should be. I=E2=80=99m probably = just missing Something simple, and am looking for another set of eyes. Thanks all. Contact me off list if you like, or on-list if it=E2=80=99s = obvious what I=E2=80=99ve done and it will help others. - Chris [1] https://github.com/vzaliva/simpleproxy [2] inet6(4), "Interaction between IPv4/v6 sockets"=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AFA64D16-9FE9-42BF-AB5B-732F474037AB>