On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 23:00:01 +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> I think it should be like this. Our kernel errnos are a bit
> inconsistent, but I think main cause for EADDRNOTAVAIL is when a
> local address is missing.
OK millert@ for after the unlock.
- todd
On Mon, Oct 02, 2017 at 11:54:19AM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 19:05:37 +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
>
> > Although I think the bug that syslogd was running into was failure
> > in source address selection. Then the temporary bind failed as
> > there was no suitable addres
On Mon, 02 Oct 2017 19:05:37 +0200, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> Although I think the bug that syslogd was running into was failure
> in source address selection. Then the temporary bind failed as
> there was no suitable address. There is no "specified address".
But the source address was specified
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:00:44AM -0600, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> ... let's also update send(2) to document EADDRNOTAVAIL
> as a possible error. The description is lifted from connect(2).
>
> OK?
Yes, we should document the additional case.
Although I think the bug that syslogd was running into
On 2017/10/02 03:04, Tom Smyth wrote:
> Hello,
>
> But the Ip configuration syntax in hostname.if is the same.
For a /31 you just use e.g. "inet 192.0.2.100/31" (and it works properly
in other parts of the system, e.g. ospfd).
> Is there anything specifically wrong in the proposed patch ?
This
