reverted, sorry for the breakage, I did my tests on an old kernel :( On 2024-04-17 02:07 -06, Theo de Raadt <dera...@cvs.openbsd.org> wrote: > There's a long history of using loX interfaces for such things. > > What might make sense is to restrict it on lo0 ? >
it's not about configuring additional IP addresses on loopback interfaces but on how they are configured. What ifconfig does internally is set a *destination* of ::1, i.e. as if called like this: /sbin/ifconfig lo19 inet6 fc00::19/128 ::1 I suspect that something somewhere in our stack depends on ::1 being there to deliver packets correctly. I'll leave this alone and punt it to future IPv6 hackers. I think we probably should enforce in the kernel that ifconfig sends us ::1 as the destination address and nothing else. >>On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 08:37:49AM -0600, Florian Obser wrote: >>> CVSROOT: /cvs >>> Module name: src >>> Changes by: flor...@cvs.openbsd.org 2024/04/16 08:37:49 >>> >>> Modified files: >>> sys/netinet6 : in6.c >>> >>> Log message: >>> Destination addresses make no sense on loopback interfaces. >>> >>> While here use (variable & FLAG) or !(variable & FLAG) consistently in >>> in6_update_ifa(). >>> >>> Discussed with claudio >>> OK denis >> >>This change introduced 15 regress failures, all related to inet6. >> >> https://regress.basename.se/ >> >>Excerpt from sys/net/mpath showing the symptom: >> >> doas -n /sbin/ifconfig lo19 inet6 fc00::19 alias >> ifconfig: lo19: SIOCIFAFATTACH: Invalid argument >> ifconfig: SIOCAIFADDR: Invalid argument >> >> > -- In my defence, I have been left unsupervised.
