From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Oct 29 16:28:11 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 735DF16A4CE
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:28:11 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from segfault-outgoing-helo.monkeys.com (segfault.monkeys.com
	[66.60.159.24])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40DD743D41
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:28:11 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from rfg@monkeys.com)
Received: from segfault-nmh-helo.monkeys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by segfault.monkeys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9836654A8;
	Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
To: Marc Olzheim <marcolz@stack.nl>
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 28 Oct 2004 23:03:12 +0200.
             <20041028210312.GA19693@stack.nl> 
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:28:10 -0700
Message-ID: <79488.1099067290@monkeys.com>
From: "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@monkeys.com>
cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Strange result (EPERM) from a call to connect(2) 
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: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 16:28:11 -0000


In message <20041028210312.GA19693@stack.nl>, you wrote:

>On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:51:09PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
>> What conditions may cause connect(2) to yield EPERM on 4.10-RELEASE?
>
>Being blocked by your own firewall is the one I can come up with...

YES!

Thank you for pointing this out.  It was non-obvious, at least to me.


P.S.  I misspoke earlier when I said that I was getting EPERM errors.
Rather, my program was printing the error message "Permission denied",
which I interpreted to be equivalent to EPERM.  But I see now that
that was incorrect.  The actual synbolic error code associated with
that specific error string is "EACCES" (errno=13).