community-id: Fix IPv6 address sorting not respecting byte order

[awelzel]

Make sure these boxes are signed before submitting your Pull Request -- thank you.

• I have read the contributing guide lines at https://docs.suricata.io/en/latest/devguide/codebase/contributing/contribution-process.html
• I have signed the Open Information Security Foundation contribution agreement at https://suricata.io/about/contribution-agreement/
• I have updated the user guide (in doc/userguide/) to reflect the changes made (if applicable)

Link to redmine ticket:
https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/6276

Describe changes:
When comparing IPv6 addresses based on uint32_t chunks, one needs to apply ntohl() conversion to the individual parts, otherwise on little endian systems individual bytes are compared in the wrong order. Avoid this all and leverage memcmp(), it'll short circuit on the first differing byte and its return values tells us which address sorts lower.

Provide values to any of the below to override the defaults.

To use a pull request use a branch name like pr/N where N is the
pull request number.

Alternatively, SV_BRANCH may also be a link to an
OISF/suricata-verify pull-request.

SV_REPO=
SV_BRANCH=https://github.com/OISF/suricata-verify/pull/1360
SU_REPO=
SU_BRANCH=
LIBHTP_REPO=
LIBHTP_BRANCH=

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #9399 (752392a) into master (becb8ce) will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #9399      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   82.17%   82.16%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         968      968              
  Lines      274198   274190       -8     
==========================================
- Hits       225331   225285      -46     
- Misses      48867    48905      +38     

Flag	Coverage Δ
fuzzcorpus	64.04% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
suricata-verify	60.91% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
unittests	62.88% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

[jasonish]

Suricata-Verify tests added here: OISF/suricata-verify#1360

Re-running CI to pick up SV PR.

[catenacyber]

Thanks for this fix

Could you just reword the commit to include the redmine ticket reference ?
cf https://docs.suricata.io/en/latest/devguide/codebase/contributing/code-submission-process.html#commits

Here is my feedback :
CI : green
Code : looks good (negative number of lines :-) )
Commits segmentation : ok
Commit messages : Could you put the redmine ticket reference in the commit ?
Git ID set : looks fine for me
CLA : I do not have access, but you say to have signed it
Doc update : not needed
Redmine ticket : ok
Rustfmt : no rust
Tests : S-V looks ok
Dependencies added: none

[jasonish]

Commit messages : Could you put the redmine ticket reference in the commit ?

Already did in a staging branch.

[victorjulien]

Commit messages : Could you put the redmine ticket reference in the commit ?

Already did in a staging branch.

@jasonish Can you make sure the updated commit is not lost now that the staging branch is closed?

[catenacyber]

Done in #9442