Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Fix "useless use of IPv6" in Tor socket #2862

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 3, 2019
Merged

Fix "useless use of IPv6" in Tor socket #2862

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 3, 2019

Conversation

agb19
Copy link
Contributor

@agb19 agb19 commented Jun 3, 2019

Implements the "possible fix" described in issue #2840 by appending the directive java.net.preferIPv4Stack=true to the JVM options.

Tested successfully on Debian 9 and Tails 3.14, using both native Tor and onion-grater.

@agb19
Fix "useless use of IPv6" in Tor socket
9970571 
Implements the "possible fix" described in issue #2840 by appending the directive `java.net.preferIPv4Stack=true` to the JVM options. 
Tested successfully on Debian 9 and Tails 3.14, using platform Tor and onion-grater.
@agb19 agb19 requested review from ripcurlx and sqrrm as code owners June 3, 2019 10:11
sqrrm
sqrrm reviewed Jun 3, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not familiar with the previous discussion and what the problems are of using IPv6 here. The PR looks correct but I'd like to understand the background.

@agb19
Copy link
Contributor Author

agb19 commented Jun 3, 2019

@sqrrm - issue #2840 should provide some background. In a nutshell, due to an unfortunate configuration default in JDK 10, Bisq sometimes tries to speak IPv6 to the IPv4 loopback address, causing an interop issue on Tails.
This change tells Java to speak IPv4 to IPv4 addresses and IPv6 to IPv6, which is a sane choice.

@sqrrm
Copy link
Member

sqrrm commented Jun 3, 2019

@agb19 My bad, didn't see that link to the issue actually explaining it.

sqrrm
sqrrm approved these changes Jun 3, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

utACK

@sqrrm sqrrm merged commit eb80770 into bisq-network:master Jun 3, 2019
@agb19 agb19 deleted the patch-1 branch June 3, 2019 11:51
@agb19 agb19 mentioned this pull request Jun 3, 2019
Closed
@sqrrm sqrrm mentioned this pull request Jun 7, 2019
Closed
@agb19 agb19 mentioned this pull request Jul 9, 2019
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@sqrrm sqrrm sqrrm approved these changes

@ripcurlx ripcurlx Awaiting requested review from ripcurlx

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@agb19 @sqrrm