On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 08:31:40AM -0800, Doug Evans wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 1:31 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 06:16:57PM -0800, Doug Evans wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 10:25 AM Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:03 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, Feb 03, 2021 at 03:35:36PM -0800, dje--- via wrote:
> > > >> > Add support for ipv6 host forwarding
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This patchset takes the original patch from Maxim,
> > > >> > https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg569573.html
> > > >> > and updates it.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > New option: -ipv6-hostfwd
> > > >> >
> > > >> > New commands: ipv6_hostfwd_add, ipv6_hostfwd_remove
> > > >> >
> > > >> > These are the ipv6 equivalents of their ipv4 counterparts.
> > > >>
> > > >> Before I noticed this v3, I send a reply to your v2 sugesting
> > > >> that we don't need to add any new commands/options. We can
> > > >> use existing inet_parse() helper function to parse the address
> > > >> info and transparently support IPv4/6 in the existing commands
> > > >> and options. This matches normal practice elsewhere in QEMU
> > > >> for IP dual stack.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I'm all for this, fwiw.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I should say I'm all for not adding new commands/options.
> > > Looking at inet_parse() it cannot be used as-is.
> > > The question then becomes: Will refactoring it buy enough?
> >
> > What's the problem your hitting with inet_parse ?
> >
>
>
> First, this is the inet_parse() function we're talking about, right?
>
> int inet_parse(InetSocketAddress *addr, const char *str, Error **errp)
>
> https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/blob/master/util/qemu-sockets.c#L618
Yes, that's right.
Thanks, just wanted to be sure.
The syntax it supports is not the same as what's needed for host forwarding.
inet_parse: address:port,option1,option2 (where options are to=,ipv4,etc).
hostfwd: address:port-address:port
If we wanted to have a utility that parsed "address:port" for v4+v6 then we'd have to split the "address:port" part out of inet_parse.
Plus the way inet_parse() parses the address, which is fine for its purposes, is with sscanf.
Alas the terminating character is not the same (',' vs '-').
IWBN to retain passing sscanf a constant format string so that the compiler can catch various errors,
and if one keeps that then any kind of refactor loses some appeal.
[Though one could require all callers to accept either ',' or '-' as the delimiter.]