This pull request allows syncthing to request an IPv6
[pinhole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewall_pinhole), addressing
issue #7406. This helps users who prefer to use IPv6 for hosting their
services or are forced to do so because of
[CGNAT](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier-grade_NAT). Otherwise,
such users would have to configure their firewall manually to allow
syncthing traffic to pass through while IPv4 users can use UPnP to take
care of network configuration already.
### Testing
I have tested this in a virtual machine setup with miniupnpd running on
the virtualized router. It successfully added an IPv6 pinhole when used
with IPv6 only, an IPv4 port mapping when used with IPv4 only and both
when dual-stack (IPv4 and IPv6) is used.
Automated tests could be added for SOAP responses from the router but
automatically testing this with a real network is likely infeasible.
### Documentation
https://docs.syncthing.net/users/firewall.html could be updated to
mention the fact that UPnP now works with IPv6, although this change is
more "behind the scenes".
---------
Co-authored-by: Simon Frei <freisim93@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: bt90 <btom1990@googlemail.com>
Co-authored-by: André Colomb <github.com@andre.colomb.de>
clearAddresses write locks the struct and then calls notify. notify in turn tries to obtain a read lock on the same mutex. The result was a deadlock. This change unlocks the struct before calling notify.
