Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 14:23:54 -0500 (CDT) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: connect(2) behavior with unreacheable hosts Message-ID: <20030413142156.O44423@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20030412.212059.42399637.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <109.225ca595.2bc723f2@aol.com> <20030412.204912.76964336.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030412.212059.42399637.imp@bsdimp.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <20030413030500.GA64896@pit.databus.com> > Barney Wolff <barney@pit.databus.com> writes: > : On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 08:49:12PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > In message: <109.225ca595.2bc723f2@aol.com> > : > BelletJr@aol.com writes: > : > : Why does not connect(2) return any error when trying to connect to a host > : > : unreachable because of an infinite loop in the routes? No time-out occurs and > : > : the value 0 is returned by connect(2). > : > > : > Hmmmmm, you are correct. I was sure that you were nuts, but on > : > -current the following program returns no error at all... Telnet > : > shows the same behavior. This is clearly wrong. > : > : It's not just current; stable behaves exactly the same. The problem is > : that the icmp time-exceeded packet gets translated into an error code > : of 0, which confuses things. I've filed a PR with a suggested fix: > : http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=50839 > > Ah. I see. I wonder if any of the net folks can review this... > > Warner EPLATEFULL, but it sounds correct... Barney, have you tried doing some sort of test where sendmail or ftpd tries making a connection to a TTL exceeded IP? I'm curious if they handle the situation gracefully or not. (If they don't, then maybe this is serious enough to require security branch merges.) Mike "Silby" Silbersackhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030413142156.O44423>