From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Tue Oct 17 08:35:19 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1522E32E7D for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:35:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de) Received: from drew.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.franken.de", Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 774EF6426E for ; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:35:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de) Received: from [47.73.226.174] (unknown [47.73.226.174]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B06E70F8FC11; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:35:11 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3445.1.7\)) Subject: Re: [Bug 221385] [Regression] v6 mapped v4 addresses not working in 11.1 From: Michael Tuexen In-Reply-To: <490283D6-C663-46BE-9125-CCD9C49CD0BF@perftech.com> Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:35:09 +0200 Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <490283D6-C663-46BE-9125-CCD9C49CD0BF@perftech.com> To: Lewis Donzis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.1.7) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=disabled version=3.4.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on mail-n.franken.de X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 08:35:19 -0000 > On 17. Oct 2017, at 03:32, Lewis Donzis wrote: >=20 > Would appreciate some guidance on this. It seems like a reasonably = serious regression, so I=E2=80=99m surprised it hasn=E2=80=99t already = been fixed. >=20 > Since all of our code binds a particular library, we were able to work = around it by overriding the weak referenced socket() with our own = version that creates the socket and explicitly turns off the V6ONLY = option, but that doesn=E2=80=99t help with third-party applications. I can check later today to tomorrow if the patch is already MFCed to = stable/11. If not done already, I can MFC it to stable/11. Best regards Michael >=20 > Thanks, > lew >=20 >=20 >> On Sep 13, 2017, at 7:47 AM, Lewis Donzis wrote: >>=20 >> Hello. >>=20 >> This particular bug is a real problem in our embedded system, and = we=E2=80=99re trying to decide whether to go back to 11.0 or wait for a = patch for 11.1. >>=20 >> We downloaded just the one file containing the fix, but it wouldn=E2=80= =99t compile, so we downloaded -CURRENT and verified that it works fine. = But it=E2=80=99s unclear to me whether the code in -CURRENT is slated = for an 11.1 patch, or if it won=E2=80=99t show up until 11.2 or even = 12.0. I see the "mfc-stable11 = =E2=80=9D = flag on the bug set to a value of =E2=80=9C?=E2=80=9D. Is that = significant? >>=20 >> Perhaps someone can help us understand how to determine when and in = which version a fix will show up. >>=20 >> Thanks, >> lew >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"