[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46F15305.2030507@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:49:09 -0700
From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX
-----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 make such broad statements.
I also don't say that this behavior should be removed. It's certainly
useful, very much so in fact.
But the spec calls for a "null address" to be used and that's in my
understanding something different from using AF_UNSPEC.
I looked through Stevens TCP Illustrated Vol 2 and it seems not to
mention resetting the address at all. The POSIX spec certainly got this
text from .1g.
I cannot test it on other systems. If somebody has access to some
certified systems (and maybe others), write a bit of code which creates
a DGRAM socket, connect to one address, call connect with a "null
address", then connect to another address (which likely has to use a
different interface since otherwise the connect will just succeed, it
seems).
- --
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFG8VMF2ijCOnn/RHQRAr9NAJwLxyql0kQnMGJNaPZlRGsuB6rGEACgog88
WIWAFhuBWsjps7PdbcoumUQ=
=oLxP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists