Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 06:33:10 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 191586] FreeBSD doesn't validate negative edgecases in bind(2)/connect(2)/listen(2) like POSIX requires Message-ID: <bug-191586-15-Q1xSzdIyIy@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-191586-15@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-191586-15@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191586 --- Comment #6 from Terry Lambert <lambert.tr@gmail.com> --- I didn't miss it. The test is still testing AF_MAX + 10, and assuming the existence of a particular set of AF's that are not mandated by POSIX, in order to provide the negative assertion. I believe the actual VSX4 tests use AF_UNIX, per the "shall define" description for <sys/socket.h>. Given the #ifdef's to allow condition deletion of AF_INET/AF_INET6 support, this makes more sense anyway. I also believe the specific failure case was added to the error messages because of the unique nature of the Linux TCP implementation regarding the "simultaneous connect" case in section 3.4 of RFC 793, which Linux handles poorly. I still believe that the test should be done in upper level code, and yes, I am aware that that would mean adding fields to the protocol family structure to allw it to be done in a protocol independent fashion. Look at it this way: if I add XNS, RTSP, or some other protocol support, it's going to fail this negative assertion test when it shouldn't, since the API is supposed to be protocol agnostic. Does that seem right to you? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-191586-15-Q1xSzdIyIy>