On 06.02.20 19:33, Lukáš Doktor wrote: > Dne 06. 02. 20 v 17:59 Max Reitz napsal(a): >> On 06.02.20 17:48, Eric Blake wrote: >>> On 2/6/20 10:37 AM, Max Reitz wrote:
[...] >>>> OTOH, would it work if we just did a %s/localhost/127.0.0.1/ in the >>>> test? We have specific cases for IPv6, so I think it makes sense to >>>> force IPv4 in all other cases. >>> >>> Except then it will fail on machines configured for IPv6-only. >> >> So we’ll just have to test whether IPv4 works, just like we already do >> for IPv6, no? >> > > Sure, using ::1 for IPv6 and 127.0.0.1 for IPv4 cases would work. The > question is whether the behavior is really expected. In migration it was > considered dangerous, because you can have 2 VMs starting the migration at > the same time. They both might attempt to get the same port, one would > receive IPv4 the other IPv6. Then depending on the order of start migrate you > might end-up attempting to migrate the other VMs instead of the intended ones. > > The same can happen here, you might start 2 nbd exports at the same time, get > the same port without any failures and then depending on luck get the right > or wrong export when attempting to connect. So I think bailing out in case we > fail to get all interfaces would be the most appropriate (note the same > situation is for 0.0.0.0 where you might end-up serving multiple different > disks on different interfaces). Anyway I leave it to you. If you decide you > don't want to fail than using ::1/127.0.0.1 sounds like a good idea. > Otherwise it'd make sense to create a test that especially uses ::1 and then > localhost to make sure it bails-out. OK. I’ll defer to Eric on that one. O:-) Max
