From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Sep 21 18:07:50 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2E29D16A4CE; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:07:50 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org (melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org
	[82.225.155.84])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5DCD543D49; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:07:49 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from thomas@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: by melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 8EC082A42B; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:07:46 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:07:46 +0200
From: Thomas Quinot <thomas@FreeBSD.ORG>
To: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20040921180746.GB49259@melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org>
References: <20040921123016.GA41677@melusine.cuivre.fr.eu.org>
	<ygefz5bh6lt.wl%ume@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ygefz5bh6lt.wl%ume@FreeBSD.org>
X-message-flag: WARNING! Using Outlook can damage your computer.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i
cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
cc: Thomas Quinot <thomas@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject: Re: freeaddrinfo(NULL)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 18:07:50 -0000

* Hajimu UMEMOTO, 2004-09-21 :

> Because, the behavior of freeaddrinfo (NULL) is undefined in RFC 2553
> nor RFC 3493.  Having such an assumption is a potentially bug and
> lose portability.

That a construct has no defined meaning does not imply that we must make
every effort to break applications that (erroneously) make use of it.
Would there be any significant drawback for conforming applications
if we made our best to deploy a safety net againt buggy user programs
by not segfaulting in this case?

There are many situations where the system already detects an invalid
pointer and reports it gracefully as an error rather than triggering a
fatal signal.

Thomas.

-- 
    Thomas.Quinot@Cuivre.FR.EU.ORG