hostmap: unlink a multi-vpnAddr hostinfo from the shared chain exactly once on delete (#1788)

2026-08-15 09:27:01 +02:00 · 2026-07-07 17:32:25 -05:00
parent e5c0fdad8d
commit 1e66c0d3ee
3 changed files with 195 additions and 33 deletions
@@ -1535,3 +1535,78 @@ func TestGoodHandshakeUnsafeDest(t *testing.T) {
 	myControl.Stop()
 	theirControl.Stop()
 }
+
+func TestMultiVpnAddrDeletePrimaryKeepsSecondAddr(t *testing.T) {
+	t.Parallel()
+	// Regression for the hostmap multi-vpnAddr delete bug. A dual-stack (v4+v6) V2-cert peer that
+	// handshakes twice at once ends up with two hostinfos linked in the shared next/prev chain, with the
+	// primary owning both addresses. Deleting that primary (e.g. connection manager dropping it, a
+	// CloseTunnel, a collision) must promote the surviving sibling for EVERY address. The pre-fix code
+	// unlinked the chain once per address, so it promoted the sibling for the first address and orphaned
+	// the second: the peer stayed reachable at its v4 addr but not its v6 addr despite a live tunnel.
+
+	ca, _, caKey, _ := cert_test.NewTestCaCert(cert.Version2, cert.Curve_CURVE25519, time.Now(), time.Now().Add(10*time.Minute), nil, nil, []string{})
+	myControl, myVpnIpNet, myUdpAddr, _ := newSimpleServer(cert.Version2, ca, caKey, "me  ", "10.128.0.1/24,fd00::1/64", nil)
+	theirControl, theirVpnIpNet, theirUdpAddr, _ := newSimpleServer(cert.Version2, ca, caKey, "them", "10.128.0.2/24,fd00::2/64", nil)
+
+	// This bug only exists for peers carrying more than one vpn address
+	require.Len(t, theirVpnIpNet, 2)
+	theirV4 := theirVpnIpNet[0].Addr()
+	theirV6 := theirVpnIpNet[1].Addr()
+
+	// Put their info in our lighthouse and vice versa
+	myControl.InjectLightHouseAddr(theirV4, theirUdpAddr)
+	theirControl.InjectLightHouseAddr(myVpnIpNet[0].Addr(), myUdpAddr)
+
+	// Build a router so we don't have to reason who gets which packet
+	r := router.NewR(t, myControl, theirControl)
+	defer r.RenderFlow()
+
+	myControl.Start()
+	theirControl.Start()
+
+	// Race a handshake so both of us build a hostinfo for the other, leaving my hostmap with a single
+	// host (them) backed by two linked hostinfos, just like TestStage1Race.
+	myControl.InjectTunPacket(BuildTunUDPPacket(theirV4, 80, myVpnIpNet[0].Addr(), 80, []byte("Hi from me")))
+	theirControl.InjectTunPacket(BuildTunUDPPacket(myVpnIpNet[0].Addr(), 80, theirV4, 80, []byte("Hi from them")))
+
+	myHsForThem := myControl.GetFromUDP(true)
+	theirHsForMe := theirControl.GetFromUDP(true)
+
+	r.InjectUDPPacket(theirControl, myControl, theirHsForMe)
+	r.InjectUDPPacket(myControl, theirControl, myHsForThem)
+
+	r.RouteForAllUntilTxTun(theirControl)
+	r.RouteForAllUntilTxTun(myControl)
+
+	r.RenderHostmaps("Racing hostmaps", myControl, theirControl)
+
+	// Two hostinfos for them means the shared next/prev chain has a sibling to promote. The Hosts map has
+	// one entry per vpn address (two, for dual stack), so the index count is what tells us there are two
+	// hostinfos.
+	require.Len(t, myControl.ListHostmapIndexes(false), 2)
+
+	// The primary owns both of their addresses
+	primaryV4 := myControl.GetHostInfoByVpnAddr(theirV4, false)
+	primaryV6 := myControl.GetHostInfoByVpnAddr(theirV6, false)
+	require.NotNil(t, primaryV4)
+	require.NotNil(t, primaryV6)
+	require.Equal(t, primaryV4.LocalIndex, primaryV6.LocalIndex, "both addrs should point at the same primary")
+
+	// Delete the primary tunnel. localOnly so we don't perturb their side, we only care about my hostmap.
+	require.True(t, myControl.CloseTunnel(theirV4, true))
+
+	// The surviving sibling must still serve BOTH addresses.
+	survivorV4 := myControl.GetHostInfoByVpnAddr(theirV4, false)
+	survivorV6 := myControl.GetHostInfoByVpnAddr(theirV6, false)
+	require.NotNil(t, survivorV4, "v4 addr should still resolve to the surviving tunnel")
+	// Pre-fix this is nil: the second address was orphaned when the primary was deleted.
+	require.NotNil(t, survivorV6, "v6 addr was orphaned after deleting the primary (multi-vpnAddr delete bug)")
+	assert.Equal(t, survivorV4.LocalIndex, survivorV6.LocalIndex, "both addrs should promote to the same survivor")
+	assert.NotEqual(t, primaryV4.LocalIndex, survivorV4.LocalIndex, "a different hostinfo should now be primary")
+
+	r.RenderHostmaps("Final hostmaps", myControl, theirControl)
+
+	myControl.Stop()
+	theirControl.Stop()
+}