Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:51:48 -0800 (PST) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@dellroad.org> To: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> Cc: kris@obsecurity.org, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [itojun@iijlab.net: accept(2) behavior with tcp RST right after handshake] Message-ID: <200102130051.QAA72498@curve.dellroad.org> In-Reply-To: <20010212122855.A92213@prism.flugsvamp.com> "from Jonathan Lemon at Feb 12, 2001 12:28:55 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jonathan Lemon writes: > > > Did you guys agree on a commit-worthy fix yet? > > > > I wasn't party to the issue that generated this thread in the first > > place, but.. I think the concensus is that if accept(2) returns > > an error then this will break some applications, so instead it > > should return a socket which will itself return an error on the > > first operation. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. > > No, as this is the current behavior. The change will be for accept > to return an error, on the basis that 1) most apps already do the > wrong thing now anyway, and 2) it brings us closer to a 'standard', > e.g.: what other systems are doing as well. I don't understand then. What is the problem with the current behavior? Is this just an optimization or a real bug fix? I'd say it's not worth changing if it's just an optimization, because too many things will break. Several apps have already been pointed out. And what do you mean by ``most apps already do the wrong thing now''? -Archie __________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Packet Design * http://www.packetdesign.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102130051.QAA72498>