Hi,
On 07/12/2018 22:33, Gert Doering wrote:
> For whatever reason, this function never printed port numbers for
> IPv6 addresses (but it did for IPv4) - which creates a bit of
> confusion for IPv6-mapped v4 addresses on a dual stack socket,
> that will have ports numbers printed or not, depending on whether
> it's a dual-stack v6 socket or single-stack v4.
>
> This will not(!) add printing of port numbers for "proper" v6
> addresses yet, because that might have adverse side effects to address
> parsing elsewhere.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gert Doering <g...@greenie.muc.de>
> ---
> src/openvpn/mroute.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/src/openvpn/mroute.c b/src/openvpn/mroute.c
> index 28940a8d..134f4c00 100644
> --- a/src/openvpn/mroute.c
> +++ b/src/openvpn/mroute.c
> @@ -477,6 +477,13 @@ mroute_addr_print_ex(const struct mroute_addr *ma,
> {
> buf_printf(&out, "%s",
> print_in_addr_t(maddr.v4mappedv6.addr,
> IA_NET_ORDER,
> gc));
> + /* we only print port numbers for v4mapped v6 as of
> + * today, because "v6addr:port" is too ambiguous
> + */
The comments above are indented with tab+spaces, while the code below is
just all spaces. Please use the all spaces everywhere.
> + if (maddr.type & MR_WITH_PORT)
> + {
> + buf_printf(&out, ":%d", ntohs(maddr.v6.port));
> + }
I don't understand how is this solving the ambiguity? Or you are just
saying: "we can't do much, let's just print the port anyway"? My
suggestion would be to surround the address with [], so basically change
the printf format above from %s to [%s]. Does it make sense?
Cheers,
> }
> else
> {
>
--
Antonio Quartulli
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openvpn-devel mailing list Openvpn-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
