From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Sun Jun 21 18:02:49 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E2153568F4 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 18:02:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ian@freebsd.org) Received: from outbound5a.ore.mailhop.org (outbound5a.ore.mailhop.org [44.233.67.66]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49qgPN4Sjjz4MMr for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 18:02:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ian@freebsd.org) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1592762566; cv=none; d=outbound.mailhop.org; s=arc-outbound20181012; b=vxFdkKrhvAGx4ruuxlEFjtIHNS+cdb+9XrYJ2+5L8yosa/4xNiut0JOn1KWHkjPaxKFNW74jl6RBg N9vMU+4FFHk4KUc/KBgzNBkgxUlcuxi5muFAltwl+r+epZBdk6JQY3YcWSwGGrP5KXDPJvY/Zk3BK/ Wt2nDlaFT05lPLniqZUHVMs1HGVDEnL6nHaxXKfLWeWfpSnTUzbj9expL2Lxp2ZRzSuqFDE6xZeyfw IuJVzq2bms0DhFbpL+hyOwRaWzuO2erv+er/3W2Xt+nUmJKjI+emE1SHrMFF3GIQBQus9UTZYRW6Oe b4DPsIerLUkBY7dqlCD2AgHG7DOGl/Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outbound.mailhop.org; s=arc-outbound20181012; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:content-type:references:in-reply-to: date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:dkim-signature:from; bh=qk0ubO/efQxNf8Y5PNmOxl8PXX/9EoaCfzOjcCu9gg4=; b=HWH5Oxla9O9j1oR3RtzBhqVGDa4LYju6DueUyKKKsbMc9RUH1uWHz9Ez7PGu1TCvqosdKVmfH46hK gS5QipgTRenjVgLSBReeTTVJZKKmuHD1tagJL2NGwgQDGixgbLGiOn+V7s8qewGhlaKLwLNjYPBaLG 2xWRPGAgBj0yAJitK1k8lGZDdwMbzYK45rPM6af7f/zvFpH2Ljk3zMt+BGp77Dc42tqbFoyyma/hkn yJ0Uvzx1FN9h6igxk5yFuAlJuwSYd/0/S+4vicTJokpipC3a6wshR+zFWyAgSWgcHH+Au88YoA38Co A8LBTj3tJnyydCvvLKceaeorJdCd7Jg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; outbound3.ore.mailhop.org; spf=softfail smtp.mailfrom=freebsd.org smtp.remote-ip=67.177.211.60; dmarc=none header.from=freebsd.org; arc=none header.oldest-pass=0; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outbound.mailhop.org; s=dkim-high; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:content-type:references:in-reply-to: date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:from; bh=qk0ubO/efQxNf8Y5PNmOxl8PXX/9EoaCfzOjcCu9gg4=; b=JdTKWBzHm4McHRJQKXEyYhtpCdOjmqSZlxhp7WNnHqB/Ml2W2kivvicmVIQVg/2/PX1r5Zjp0vexM yFnpesYLrEstC4UFFN4Zhfr6oPCMxWKI1yGSZdCUIP6mx2zokanp6W7Wdj1j6+O2b11T6vvtF1AtrJ 0e4/wf/yYr+oAszQcUwHa7pU32cQDtaTw61pBLnO80bi5C0fEj0Nwq2cIDvg7pK4gU/TWb2Y5uKJvZ 3ypmVBxueaugPqGKIVuO058Gtdy5l/L0/lszUJZYyO9MagmNhAN2VdGMJvyAIWrZb5IBQNMZM5SnzR qCxECdz1VKva6hLV76thLfFyDLDPfHg== X-MHO-RoutePath: aGlwcGll X-MHO-User: 6830c9ff-b3e9-11ea-a2ba-9f0c275c2f69 X-Report-Abuse-To: https://support.duocircle.com/support/solutions/articles/5000540958-duocircle-standard-smtp-abuse-information X-Originating-IP: 67.177.211.60 X-Mail-Handler: DuoCircle Outbound SMTP Received: from ilsoft.org (c-67-177-211-60.hsd1.co.comcast.net [67.177.211.60]) by outbound3.ore.mailhop.org (Halon) with ESMTPSA id 6830c9ff-b3e9-11ea-a2ba-9f0c275c2f69; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 18:02:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rev (rev [172.22.42.240]) by ilsoft.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 05LI2ivh048000; Sun, 21 Jun 2020 12:02:44 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from ian@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <8899ab009f5a2d6fca0cebd53913ca03a48f4861.camel@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: =?koi8-r?Q?=F7?= =?koi8-r?Q?_=CF=D4=D7=C5=D4?= =?koi8-r?Q?_=CE=C1=3A?= vnc can't connect to socket From: Ian Lepore To: Michael Tuexen Cc: "bergerkos@yahoo.co.uk" , "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 12:02:44 -0600 In-Reply-To: References: <1559644055.2429905.1592721641280.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1559644055.2429905.1592721641280@mail.yahoo.com> <1749874720.2583691.1592742539717@mail.yahoo.com> <5035A0D1-BF25-4483-BD52-75944EBBEF8E@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ASCII" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 FreeBSD GNOME Team Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49qgPN4Sjjz4MMr X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; ASN(0.00)[asn:16509, ipnet:44.224.0.0/11, country:US] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2020 18:02:49 -0000 On Sun, 2020-06-21 at 19:54 +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote: > > On 21. Jun 2020, at 19:40, Ian Lepore wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2020-06-21 at 14:54 +0200, Michael Tuexen wrote: > > > > On 21. Jun 2020, at 14:28, Kostya Berger > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Ok, it turns out, it gives the previously mentioned error only > > > > if I > > > > use VNC server string 0.0.0.0:5900 (as I always did). in my VNC > > > > client.But when replaced with127.0.0.1:5900it connects all > > > > right. > > > > > > I don't hink 0.0.0.0 is a valid destination address you can use > > > in > > > connect(). Using 127.0.0.1 should > > > be fine. > > > > > > I guess, https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/361752 is the > > > relevant commit here. > > > > > > > *BSD has always accepted 0 as a synonym for localhost (and iirc, linux > > does not). If this no longer works, it's a regression which is going > > to cause existing applications and scripts to fail. At the very least > > it deserves an entry in UPDATING. > > Hmm. 0.0.0.0 is a wildcard address, meaning any of my local addresses. > I do understand how that works for binding a TCP socket you will be > listening on. It just means accept TCP connections on all addresses. > The destination address of the incoming SYN segment will determine which > one to use. However, which of the local addresses should be used > when calling connect() with 0.0.0.0? How should this choice be made? > > Best regards > Michael > I don't know. I had thought the idea was sanctioned by a couple RFCs, but I just had a fresh look at them (1122, 5735) and it now appears to me that in both cases it sanctions using 0.0.0.0 as a source address, but not as a destination. So now I'm thinking maybe it has been a historical mistake amongst the BSDs to accept it as a destination address synonym for 127.0.0.1. I was mostly just pointing out this change to no longer accept it is going to be a big surprise to many people when it hits the streets in a release. I know it's going to break things at $work, we'll have to start combing around for uses of it and make changes. (Fixing my 20+ years of finger-memory for "nc 0 " will be harder.) -- Ian