From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Sep 12 07:57:59 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA08605
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 07:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from word.smith.net.au (word.smith.net.au [202.0.75.3])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id HAA08590
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 12 Sep 1997 07:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from word.smith.net.au (localhost.smith.net.au [127.0.0.1])
	by word.smith.net.au (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA03400
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:24:47 +1000 (EST)
Message-Id: <199709121424.AAA03400@word.smith.net.au>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: bug in getservent() ?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 23:54:45 +0930
From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


One of the interesting observations coming out of a recent discussion 
has been that getservent() behaves a little oddly with regard to port 
numbers. 

Notably, we have this fragment :

	(int)serv.s_port = htons((u_short)atoi(p));

By my reading, that puts a network-order short into serv.s_port.  
However elsewhere (eg. getservent(3)) port numbers are referenced as 
integer quantities; getservent(3) even goes so far as to explicitly 
mention that the port number is a 32-bit quantity.

Any suggestions on a "correct" fix, or is this a "known" BSDism?

mike