On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:38:57 PDT, Rick Jones said:
> One has to set their way-back machine pretty far back to find the *BSD
> bits which used 0.0.0.0 as the "all nets, all subnets" (to mis-use a
> term) broadcast IPv4 address when sending. Perhaps as far back as the
> time before HP-UX 7 or Su
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Miller wrote:
> It just occured to me that AF_UNSPEC might be used simply
> because "all zeros" might be a valid real bindable address
> for some address family. And using AF_UNSPEC avoids that
> problem entirely.
Yes, but for IPv4/6 it's not a
> It has hung-on in various places (stacks) as an "accepted" broadcast IP
> in the receive path, but not the send path for quite possibly decades now.
Well it is valid in Linux for sending. And who knows who relies on it.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev
Andi Kleen wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 11:02:00AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
on UDP/RAW and it's certainly possible to connect() to that.
Where do you get this from? And where is this implemented? I don't
Sorry it's actually loopback, not broadcast as implemented in Linux.
In Linux
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 11:02:00AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > on UDP/RAW and it's certainly possible to connect() to that.
>
> Where do you get this from? And where is this implemented? I don't
Sorry it's actually loopback, not broadcast as implemented in Linux.
In Linux it's implemented
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andi Kleen wrote:
> Spec doesn't match traditional behaviour then.
Well, determining whether that's the case is part of this exercise.
> IPv4 0.0.0.0 is
> traditionally an synonym for old style all broadcast (255.255.255.255)
> on UDP/RAW and it's
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:46:54 -0700
Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> But the spec calls for a "null address" to be used and that's in my
> >> understanding something different from using AF_UNSPEC.
> >
> > memse
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 10:46:54AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> But the spec calls for a "null address" to be used and that's in my
> >> understanding something different from using AF_UNSPEC.
> >
> > memset(&sockaddr, 0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andi Kleen wrote:
>> But the spec calls for a "null address" to be used and that's in my
>> understanding something different from using AF_UNSPEC.
>
> memset(&sockaddr, 0, sizeof(sockaddr)) should give you AF_UNSPEC
But the spec calls for null addre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Yes, but for IPv4/6 it's not an issue. Some implementations might
> handle all-zeros and the spec _currently_ calls for it. In this case an
> alignment would be good.
Searching the web shows up this:
http://developer.apple.c
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 09:49:09AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > The standard way to undo connect is to use AF_UNSPEC. Code to handle
> > that for dgram sockets is there. It's the same code for v4 and v6.
>
> I quoted the
From: Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:49:09 -0700
> But the spec calls for a "null address" to be used and that's in my
> understanding something different from using AF_UNSPEC.
It just occured to me that AF_UNSPEC might be used simply
because "all zeros" might be a v
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andi Kleen wrote:
> The standard way to undo connect is to use AF_UNSPEC. Code to handle
> that for dgram sockets is there. It's the same code for v4 and v6.
I quoted the standard and it does not say anything about AF_UNSPEC. So
you cannot simply mak
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:21:47 -0700
>
> > If you think the POSIX spec is wrong (and can point to other
> > implementations doing the same as Linux) let me know and I'll
From: Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:21:47 -0700
> If you think the POSIX spec is wrong (and can point to other
> implementations doing the same as Linux) let me know and I'll work on
> getting the spec changed.
The whole AF_UNSPEC thing I'm almost certain comes from
Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>fd = socket(AT_INET6, ...)
>
>connect(fd, ...some IPv6 address...)
>
>struct sockaddr_in6 sin6 = { .sin6_family = AF_INET6 };
>connect(fd, &sin6, sizeof (sin6));
The standard way to undo connect is to use AF_UNSPEC. Code to handle
t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As a follow up to my question from yesterday on the netdev list what I
think is a real problem. Either in the kernel or in the POSIX spec.
The POSIX spec currently says this about SOCK_DGRAM sockets:
If address is a null address for the protocol,
17 matches
Mail list logo
