prov/verbs: establishing verbs connection using the GID doesn't work

[SnaKyEyeS]

Describe the bug
Attempting to use NICs with IPoIB (via a call to fi_domain) disabled with the verbs provider using @sydidelot's feature (#5605) with RxM enabled doesn't work, likely due to RxM's assumption of dest_addr = FI_SOCKADDR rather than FI_SOCKADDR_IB

To Reproduce
Steps to reproduce the behavior:

• Use MPICH on a NIC where IPoIB is disabled (with FI_PROVIDER=verbs,ofi_rxm)
• Unfortunately I don't really have a simple reproducer, but the specific call failing is attempting to call fi_domain on a NIC using its GID rather than via IPoIB

Expected behavior
Replacing this line with .addr_format = FI_SOCKADDR_IB makes everything working as expected (ie, the call to fi_domain on a NIC with IPoIB disabled (thus using its GID instead) succeeds.

Output
OFI fails with ENODATA

[3] libfabric:1347797:1729070846:ofi_rxm:verbs:fabric:vrb_get_rai_id():301<warn> rdma_resolve_addr: Invalid argument (22)
[3] libfabric:1347797:1729070846:ofi_rxm:verbs:fabric:vrb_get_rai_id():303<info> src addr: fi_sockaddr_ib://[fe80::88e9:a4ff:ff1c:5860]:0xffff:0x13f:0x0
[3] libfabric:1347797:1729070846:ofi_rxm:verbs:fabric:vrb_get_rai_id():305<info> dst addr: (null)
[3] libfabric:1347797:1729070846:ofi_rxm:verbs:fabric:vrb_get_match_infos():1825<info> handling of the socket address fails - -22

Environment:
fi_info's relevant output:

fi_info:
    caps: [ FI_MULTI_RECV, FI_LOCAL_COMM, FI_REMOTE_COMM, FI_HMEM ]
    mode: [ FI_BUFFERED_RECV ]
    addr_format: FI_SOCKADDR_IB
    src_addrlen: 48
    dest_addrlen: 0
    src_addr: fi_sockaddr_ib://[fe80::88e9:a4ff:ff4a:997c]:0xffff:0x13f:0x0
    dest_addr: (null)
    handle: (nil)
[...]

[shefty]

Address format FI_SOCKADDR should support sockaddr_ib. That is, the expectation is the address to be castable to struct sockaddr, with the sa_family indicating the address format. There is a wrong or missing check buried somewhere in the code that is not properly including sockaddr_ib. I looked into the verbs code to see if I could figure out where the check is needed, but the code is too confusing to identify where a problem might be.