Re: Problem with IPv6 privacy addresses in 7.0

On 5/27/26 11:51 PM, Chris Adams wrote:

Once upon a time, Jakub Kicinski [off-list ref] said:

quoted

On Tue, 26 May 2026 20:06:41 -0500 Chris Adams wrote:

quoted

quoted

Hi! Adding more people to CC. Do you know if you upgraded from 6.18
or 6.19?

It was 6.19 to 7.0.

quoted

Would you be able to try testing with some commits reverted?
On a quick look the candidates would be:

cb3de96eea66 ("ipv6: preserve insertion order for same-scope addresses")

It's this one.

Phew, the second one was mine :)

quoted

I figured out that it happens after stopping a VM (and I usually
start/stop a VM for a bit in the morning, which is why it happened more
than once).  So I set up a VM with a nested VM, running up-to-date
Fedora 44, and then was able to bisect pretty easily, and it landed on
this commit.

Fedora is using NetworkManager, and IIRC NM does some part of privacy
address management (right?).  NM didn't change, so maybe this commit is
confusing something in NM?

Sounds plausible, pretty sure we knew this commit was risky to begin
with, but we had no direct proof that it'd break real life users.

Revert is the right course of action here. Would you be willing/able
to send the revert with your problem description and a Fixes tag
pointing to the reverted commit?

I did want to add a little more test note:

It's definitely an interaction with NetworkManager.  If I stop NM and
run my VM start/stop test, nothing unexpected happens after.  If NM is
running and I do my VM test, when the next router advertisement is
received, NM replaces the privacy addresses.

As someone that is experienced in NetworkManager, I can confirm it is related. NetworkManager is querying the IPv6 address and when the connection is configured with ipv6.ip6-privacy=2 (prefer-temp-addr), NetworkManager creates a route to make the system use the temporary address for outgoing connections by default.

If the order is messed up, the address picked will likely be too. One could argue that this is partially fault of NetworkManager and that it should check the timestamps or preferred times rather than order.. but well, the rule is "do not break userspace".

I hope this clarifies things.

Thanks,
Fernando.