Re: Bug #14967: getaddrinfo(NULL) with AI_PASSIVE wrong AF order- is the proposed fix feasible?

["Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>]

On 03/06/2013 02:21 PM, Ruslan N. Marchenko wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I've recently faced with the problem that getaddrinfo(NULL, srv, {
> AI_PASSIVE | AI_V4MAPPED, AF_UNSPEC},ret) returns address families in
> the wrong order - INET,INET6 instead of INET6,INET - on dualstack
> host.
> 
> Googling further I've trapped on several existing bugs raised
> different times and bug 14967 in particular (I've attached other
> relevant from my point urls the the bug).
> 
> Debugging it with GDB revealed problem to be related to the way how
> address validation is performed and the fact that this validation
> (connect()-based) is not very suitable for AI_PASSIVE call (intended
> for bind()).
> 
> I've written and tested patch (attached to the case) and implemented
> ugly workaround in my code (simple reordering of the result). Now i
> wonder - if this bug is on the radar, whether it has other known and
> planned to implement solution, and if I can expect it to be fixed in
> some nearest future (which will obsolete implemented workaround)  or
> everyone is happy with the current state of art and each custome
> workaround is a personal tragedy of anyyone impacted?

Fixing dualstack hosts in definately on our radar. We know that this
is a serious issue for developers.

I am committed to making this considerably better in Fedora 19, which
means we'll be working on this in the next 3-4 months.

You can see the proposal here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FixNetworkNameResolution?rd=Features/FixDualProtocolNameResolution

Please feel free to add BZ#'s to that wiki page that are important
to you. We need user feedback.

Cheers,
Carlos.