From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Jun 15 11: 2:11 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from axl.noc.iafrica.com (axl.noc.iafrica.com [196.31.1.175])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78C201507A
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 11:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sheldonh@axl.noc.iafrica.com)
Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.noc.iafrica.com)
	by axl.noc.iafrica.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
	id 10txX1-000MIq-00
	for hackers@freebsd.org; Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:01:55 +0200
From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: inetd+libwrap and wrapping UDP services
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 20:01:55 +0200
Message-ID: <85735.929469715@axl.noc.iafrica.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


Hi folks,

The patches on PR 12097 that deal with fixing inetd's handling of
tcp_wrapper support do _not_ enable wrapping of UDP services. David
Malone and I are busy working on a patch for doing so, but I have a
question that I probably should have asked when we started.

Is there any point in wrapping UDP services (identified as "dgram udp"
services in inetd.conf)? Since they're all single-threaded, using the
wait option, any successful connection opens up a rolling period during
which any further connections will not be wrapped (hence the word
rolling).

So what's the point? Obviously, if there's a real need for wrapping UDP
services, we'll carry on grafting.

Thanks,
Sheldon.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message