Hi all,

Nigel is no longer the timidity maintainer, Jindrich Novy and I are now
maintaing timidity, reassigning this to me.

Are there any docs anywhere on how to fix this in general?

Created attachment 293992 [details]
TiMidity++ IPv6 Patch (ver. 2.13.2)

Attached patch might help with the problem.

(In reply to comment #2)
> Created an attachment (id=293992) [edit]
> TiMidity++ IPv6 Patch (ver. 2.13.2)
> 
> Attached patch might help with the problem.

Thanks!

Has anyone actually tested this patch?

The patch was reviewed internally in Red Hat, I also made some
local testing with couple of IPv6 http and ftp URIs.

You may wanna try something like:
timidity http://[your:ipv6:site:local:address]:port/midifile.mid

or

timidity ftp://[your:ipv6:site:local:address]:port/midifile.mid

or you may want to put some HTTP / FTP IPv6 proxy into timidity config
file to see if it works.

(In reply to comment #4)
> The patch was reviewed internally in Red Hat, I also made some
> local testing with couple of IPv6 http and ftp URIs.
> 

Ok, thats good enough for me applied and build in rawhide, thanks!

Milan,

I've found (and just fixed) a bug in your ipv6 patch. This comment is not meant
to be complaining I'm very grateful for the patch. But I think / guess you've
written more ipv6 patches, and chances are you've made the same mistake elsewhere.

The timidity++ server code has a piece of code where it compares 2 addresses
(for security validation).

You replaced the ipv4 only code like this:
-    if(control_client.sin_addr.s_addr != in.sin_addr.s_addr)
-       return send_status(513, "Security violation:  Address mismatch");
+    /* Not quite protocol independent */
+    switch (((struct sockaddr *) &control_client)->sa_family)
+    {
+        case AF_INET:
+            if (((struct sockaddr_in *) &control_client)->sin_addr.s_addr !=
+                ((struct sockaddr_in *) &in)->sin_addr.s_addr)
+                return send_status(513, "Security violation: Address mismatch"
+            break;
+        case AF_INET6:
+            if (((struct sockaddr_in6 *) &control_client)->sin6_addr.s6_addr !
+                ((struct sockaddr_in6 *) &in)->sin6_addr.s6_addr)
+                return send_status(513, "Security violation: Address mismatch"
+            break;
+    }

Notice how in the ipv6 case you compare (using != ) the 2 .s6_addr members of
the sin6_addr struct. However .s6_addr is an array so you are comparing
addresses making the comparison always say they are not equal.

I've replaced this with:

         case AF_INET6:
             if (memcmp(
                 ((struct sockaddr_in6 *) &control_client)->sin6_addr.s6_addr,
                 ((struct sockaddr_in6 *) &in)->sin6_addr.s6_addr, 16))
                 return send_status(513, "Security violation: Address mismatch"
             break;

Which seems to work for me (now ipv6 clients can connect) Cheers!

I agree -- memcmp does the trick, my bad, thanks for letting me know :-)