[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100401090756.69bfb57d@notabene.brown>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 09:07:56 +1100
From: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: shemminger@...tta.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Undefined behaviour of connect(fd, NULL, 0);
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:17:32 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 07:24:12 +1100
>
> >> --- a/net/ipv4/af_inet.c 2010-03-31 11:47:01.952910248 -0700
> >> +++ b/net/ipv4/af_inet.c 2010-03-31 11:48:09.852938406 -0700
> >> @@ -575,7 +575,7 @@ int inet_stream_connect(struct socket *s
> >>
> >> lock_sock(sk);
> >>
> >> - if (uaddr->sa_family == AF_UNSPEC) {
> >> + if (addr_len < sizeof(sa_family_t) || uaddr->sa_family == AF_UNSPEC) {
> >> err = sk->sk_prot->disconnect(sk, flags);
> >> sock->state = err ? SS_DISCONNECTING : SS_UNCONNECTED;
> >> goto out;
> >
> > Thanks for the reply.
> >
> > The implication of this patch is that
> > connect(fd, NULL, 0)
> > is actually a valid way to check if an in-progress connection has completed.
> >
> > Is that the intention?
>
> That's not how I read the patch, the result is that connect(fd, NULL...)
> will now disconnect the socket.
Yes, you are right - I read it upside-down. Sorry.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists