On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Stefan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
> hello.
>
> On 13/12/16 12:33, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Stefan Schmidt <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> On 13/12/16 12:25, Tom Hacohen wrote:
>>>> On 13/12/16 10:26, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 13/12/16 02:15, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
>>>>>> Stefan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you check the environment where the test runs? In the log
>>>>>> https://build.enlightenment.org/job/nightly_efl_gcc_x86_64/ws/src/test-suite.log
>>>>>> I see:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WARNING: your system miss '::1 localhost' or '::1 localhost6' in
>>>>>> /etc/hosts
>>>>>> 98%: Checks: 54, Failures: 1, Errors: 0
>>>>>> tests/ecore_con/ecore_con_test_efl_net_ip_address.c:1149:F:Efl_Net_Ip_Address:ecore_test_efl_net_ip_address_ipv6_resolve_ok:0:
>>>>>> Expected error=0 (success), got 1073741834 (Couldn't resolve host
>>>>>> name) resolving=[::1]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> maybe the machine is not IPv6-enabled? or nswitch.conf disables
>>>>>> something?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not IPv6 enabled. No entry for ::1 in /etc/hosts and no inet6 address or
>>>>> such shown with ip a. Beber (cc'ed) is handling the systems. He would
>>>>> know why he has IPv6 disabled on them.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I agree that we should have IPv6 everywhere our tests should still
>>>>> work on systems without or do you disagree? I would expect it falls back
>>>>> to IPv4. Something we also need to keep in mind are systems without
>>>>> internet or even without network. But that is a generic problem for the
>>>>> test suite and not really related to your ecore_con revamp.
>>>>
>>>> I think that we are at this point in life that there's no excuse to not
>>>> having IPv6. We shouldn't handle this case in our test suite, but
>>>> instead encourage people to start using it, or at the very least,
>>>> prepare their systems.
>>>
>>> I fully agree (even have native IPv6 here) but we need to be defensive
>>> what we expect to be available in our test suite.
>>
>> well... both are easy to handle... just need to know a reliable way to
>> check for AF_INET6 support...
>>
>> maybe this would do:
>>
>> Eina_Bool ipv6_check(void) {
>> int fd = socket(AF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
>> if (fd != -1) close(fd);
>> return fd != -1;
>> }
>>
>> could someone check this in an IPv6 disabled machine?
>
> Not enough:
>
> stefan@workmachine efl (master) $ cat ipv6.c
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <sys/socket.h>
>
> void main(void) {
> int sd = socket(AF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
> printf("AF_INET6 socket return: %i\n", sd);
> if (sd != -1) close(sd);
> }
> stefan@workmachine efl (master) $ gcc ipv6.c -o ipv6
> stefan@workmachine efl (master) $ ./ipv6
> AF_INET6 socket return: 3
>
> On the affected slave I get the same:
> 0 06:02:15 stefan@e5-build-gentoo-x86_64-1 ~ $ ./ipv6
> AF_INET6 socket return: 3
>
> The INET6 address family for sockets is still available even if no IPv6
> is configured.
what if you bind to an ephemeral port?
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <netinet/in.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <Eina.h>
static Eina_Bool
_ipv6_enabled_check(void)
{
int fd, r;
struct sockaddr_in6 a = {
.sin6_family = AF_INET6,
.sin6_addr = IN6ADDR_LOOPBACK_INIT,
};
fd = socket(AF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
if (fd == -1) return EINA_FALSE;
r = bind(fd, (struct sockaddr *)&a, sizeof(a));
close(fd);
return r != -1;
}
int main(void) {
printf("IPv6 supported: %d\n", _ipv6_enabled_check());
return 0;
}
--
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
--------------------------------------
Mobile: +55 (16) 99354-9890
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
