public inbox for glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug network/30604] New: Inconsistent getaddrinfo zone-index handling
@ 2023-07-01 20:57 mirai at makinata dot eu
2023-07-03 19:08 ` [Bug network/30604] " fweimer at redhat dot com
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: mirai at makinata dot eu @ 2023-07-01 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30604
Bug ID: 30604
Summary: Inconsistent getaddrinfo zone-index handling
Product: glibc
Version: 2.37
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: network
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: mirai at makinata dot eu
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 14951
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14951&action=edit
Reproducer code
While writing a procedure that validates IP addresses by using getaddrinfo I
noticed the following inconsistencies when it comes to addresses with a zone
index:
An existing interface …
… as a numeric value:
2001:db8::1%2: getaddrinfo: OK
fe80::1%2: getaddrinfo: OK
… as an interface name:
2001:db8::1%enp4s0: getaddrinfo: Name or service not known
fe80::1%enp4s0: getaddrinfo: OK
An absent interface…
… as a numeric value:
2001:db8::1%9999: getaddrinfo: OK
fe80::1%9999: getaddrinfo: OK
… as an interface name:
2001:db8::1%foobar: getaddrinfo: Name or service not known
fe80::1%foobar: getaddrinfo: Name or service not known
I've included a small reproducer example below.
(regarding the absent interface cases, I've no opinion on what behavior to
expect here.)
It strikes me as odd that the "2001:db8::1%enp4s0" case is treated differently
on the
basis of its prefix (compared to "fe80:…").
Although at the moment only link-local and multicast scopes have defined
meaning
[RFC4007], within the Introduction of the same RFC it states:
… the IPv6 working group decided to … and is now investigating other
forms of local IPv6 addressing.
If I understood correctly this means that zone indexes should not be
preferentially handled on basis of prefix since other scopes might be
introduced later.
In any case, I think that getaddrinfo should handle "2001:db8::1%enp4s0"
in the same way it handles "2001:db8::1%2". Allowing %2 but not %enp4s0
is just massive hair-splitting. (especially when %2 happens to match %enp4s0)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-07-03 19:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-07-01 20:57 [Bug network/30604] New: Inconsistent getaddrinfo zone-index handling mirai at makinata dot eu
2023-07-03 19:08 ` [Bug network/30604] " fweimer at redhat dot com
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).