Date: 05 Dec 1997 02:20:24 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no> To: Ari Suutari <ari@suutari.iki.fi> Cc: John Kelly <jak@cetlink.net>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 3.0 -release ? Message-ID: <86k9dkegbr.fsf@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: Ari Suutari's message of Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:00:13 %2B0200 (EET) References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971204115814.335A-100000@kn6-045.ktvlpr.inet.fi>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ari Suutari <ari@suutari.iki.fi> writes: > On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Eivind Eklund wrote: > > > > Problem both places, methinks. See if the following fixes it (from > > aage@aage.priv.no): > > > > --- /tmp/natd.c Tue Dec 2 22:24:53 1997 > > +++ /usr/src/usr.sbin/natd/natd.c Wed Oct 29 22:11:32 1997 > > @@ -1332,7 +1332,7 @@ > > > > port = strtol (str, &end, 10); > > if (end != str) > > - return htonl (port); > > + return htons (port); > > > > sp = getservbyname (str, proto); > > if (!sp) > > > > If it does, I'll commit it - it looks correct, and I've got one other > > favourable report :-) > > > > Hi, > > After making this change, it no longer worked > on 2.2, I guess that it won't work on 3.0 either > (I didn't have time to check it any futher, I just > tried it). Weird. I've had reports from two users (one that is using natd and had problems, and Aage Roebekk that actually fixed it) that this solves a genuine problem. Using htonl() on a port number at least seems to be wrong - port numbers are 16 bits. Signed/unsigned trouble too, perhaps? Eivind.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86k9dkegbr.fsf>