netdev - Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070919190604.342363b4@the-village.bc.nu>
Date:	Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:06:04 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: follow-up: discrepancy with POSIX

On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 10:46:54 -0700
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com> 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, sizeof(sockaddr)) should give you AF_UNSPEC
> 
> But the spec calls for <quote>null address for the protocol</quote>.
> 
> That means the family for the null address is the same as the family of
> the socket.

Which is a valid address in some protocols. If I remember rightly then
appletalk net 0 node 0 port 0 is valid although I'd want to look in the
book to check that - ditto AF_ECONET although I doubt anyone cares too
much 8)

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html