Re: virt-manager broken by bind(0) in net-next.
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <hidden>
Date: 2009-01-31 08:37:25
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2009-02-01 · Re: virt-manager broken by bind(0) in net-next. · Evgeniy Polyakov <hidden>
- 2009-02-01 · Re: virt-manager broken by bind(0) in net-next. · David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
- 2009-02-01 · Re: virt-manager broken by bind(0) in net-next. · Stephen Hemminger <hidden>
- 2009-02-01 · Re: virt-manager broken by bind(0) in net-next. · Stephen Hemminger <hidden>
- 2009-01-31 · Re: virt-manager broken by bind(0) in net-next. · Evgeniy Polyakov <hidden>
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 06:52:24PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger (shemminger@vyatta.com) wrote:
My working hypothesis is:
1. Something about Evgeniy's patch makes IPV6 (actually IPV4 in IPV6) be
preferred over plain IPV4.
2. Vino server (VNC) doesn't think ::ffff::127.0.0.1 is really the localhost
3. protocol gets screwed up after that.
It is probably reproducible with other services that support IPV6.getaddrinfo() returns list of addresses and IPv6 was the first one iirc. Previously it bailed out, but with my change it will try again without reason for doing this. With the patch I sent based on Eric's observation things should be fine. -- Evgeniy Polyakov