Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:44:15 -0800 (PST) From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mikko_Ty=F6l=E4j=E4rvi?= <mikko@dynas.se> To: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Rejecting a connection: is accept(2) correct? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012140936520.336-100000@explorer.rsa.com> In-Reply-To: <20001214173605.A53698@walton.maths.tcd.ie>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, David Malone wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 09:12:18AM -0800, Mikko Työläjärvi wrote:
>
> > Is this really true? A quick experiment with recvmsg() seems to
> > indicate it is not, at least not for TCP sockets.
>
> I think this applies after you have accepted the connection. You
> can call getpeername() to choose what to do about the call. You
> can immediately close the connection if you don't want to deal with
> it.
Umm.. yes, that is the normal way of doing things, but that is not
what (I think) it says in the man-page, which is why I was wondering.
"One can obtain user connection request data without confirming the
connection..." (and then goes on about recvmsg(),sendmsg() and
{set,get}sockept() with little or no details).
It does not state which socket this is supposed to operate on: the
listening socket, or the new one. If it is the listening socket,
it would be an innovation, and open up assorted new possibilities.
If it is the new socket, it is old news :-)
/Mikko
Mikko Työläjärvi_______________________________________mikko@rsasecurity.com
RSA Security
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0012140936520.336-100000>