Author Michael.Felt
Recipients Michael.Felt, asvetlov, eamanu, lepaperwan, maxifree, miss-islington, twisteroid ambassador, yselivanov
Date 2019-05-29.13:48:48
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <4b5a13db-28a0-6126-70a4-88809f32323a@felt.demon.nl>
In-reply-to <1558736392.74.0.828369698293.issue35545@roundup.psfhosted.org>
Content
On 25/05/2019 00:19, Erwan Le Pape wrote:
> Erwan Le Pape <lepaperwan3@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
> Thanks for testing that. It's good that you used an actual address because that eliminates the possibility that AIX doesn't handle addresses it doesn't really know about.
>
> On the other hand, even when properly specified to a real scoped IPv6 address, `getaddrinfo` doesn't seem to get the necessary scope ID from the underlying C call which socket.getaddrinfo > _socket.getaddrinfo is pretty much mapped to.
>
> I'm looking at cpython/master for the socketmodule implementation:
> https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/6dbbe748e101a173b4cff8aada41e9313e287e0f/Modules/socketmodule.c#L6400 is `getaddrinfo`
> https://github.com/python/cpython/blob/master/Modules/socketmodule.c#L1294 is `makesockaddr` which actually creates the 4-tuple returned as the last element of the `getaddrinfo` tuples.
> The fourth element (ie. the scope ID) is clearly `a->sin6_scope_id` which should contain the scope ID.
>
> At this stage, I don't know if this is a bug from the socketmodule which I doubt or if the AIX `getaddrinfo` simply just doesn't handle scoped IP addresses properly.

I also doubt a bug in the socketmodule - my assumption is that AIX may
be wrong - although I prefer different, i.e., has idiosyncrasies.

++ If we "accept" or "conclude" that AIX's getaddrinfo() routine is not
working as needed for this test - would "you" (Python-core) accept a
@SkipIf for this test - as is already done re: IPv6 re:

bpo-34490 Fix test_asyncio for AIX - do not call transport.get_extra_info('sockname')

++ Further, I have a start on "send/receive" stubs in C and am trying
out different ideas - learn as I go. "netstat" clearly shows, as does
ifconfig -a

root@x066:[/]ifconfig -a
en0:
flags=1e080863,c0<UP,BROADCAST,NOTRAILERS,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST,GROUPRT,64BIT,CHECKSUM_OFFLOAD(ACTIVE),LARGESEND,CHAIN>
        inet 192.168.129.66 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.129.255
        inet6 fe80::221:5eff:fea3:c746/64
         tcp_sendspace 131072 tcp_recvspace 65536 rfc1323 0
en1:
flags=1e080863,480<UP,BROADCAST,NOTRAILERS,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST,GROUPRT,64BIT,CHECKSUM_OFFLOAD(ACTIVE),CHAIN>
        inet6 fe80::f8d1:8cff:fe32:8305%2/64
lo0:
flags=e08084b,c0<UP,BROADCAST,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST,GROUPRT,64BIT,LARGESEND,CHAIN>
        inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 broadcast 127.255.255.255
        inet6 ::1%1/128
         tcp_sendspace 131072 tcp_recvspace 131072 rfc1323 1

Sadly, I have a lot to learn re: IPv6 - and I expect how "host-based
routing" is concerned*, so movement forward will be slow going.

* from years ago, I recall a discussion where one of the improvements in
IPv6 compared to IPv4 is that the "work" of routing would be shared by
all end-points, rather than focused in router(-hubs) whose performance
basically determine the performance limits of a connection (or connections).

>
> If you're still okay to proxy tests for AIX, I'll try and come up with either a simple C snippet to see what's in the returned structure or ctype the AIX `libc` `getaddrinfo`.
Repeating - always willing.
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <https://bugs.python.org/issue35545>
> _______________________________________
>
History
Date User Action Args
2019-05-29 13:48:49Michael.Feltsetrecipients: + Michael.Felt, asvetlov, yselivanov, lepaperwan, eamanu, twisteroid ambassador, miss-islington, maxifree
2019-05-29 13:48:49Michael.Feltlinkissue35545 messages
2019-05-29 13:48:48Michael.Feltcreate