From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jul 27 14:50:28 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E911A16A420
	for <freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:50:27 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94BDF43D48
	for <freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:50:27 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6REoRvB044193
	for <freebsd-bugs@freefall.freebsd.org>; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:50:27 GMT
	(envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.3/8.13.1/Submit) id j6REoRos044192;
	Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:50:27 GMT (envelope-from gnats)
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:50:27 GMT
Message-Id: <200507271450.j6REoRos044192@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org
From: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@freebsd.org>
Cc: 
Subject: Re: bin/84106: inet_pton(AF_INET6, ....) seems too permissive
X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Bug reports <freebsd-bugs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-bugs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-bugs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:50:28 -0000

The following reply was made to PR bin/84106; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@freebsd.org>
To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com>
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org, standards@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: bin/84106: inet_pton(AF_INET6, ....) seems too permissive
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:42:57 +0900

 Hi,
 
 >>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:03:27 -0400
 >>>>> Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> said:
 
 mi+kde> On Wednesday 27 July 2005 06:42 am, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
 mi+kde> = mi> 		1:2:3:4:5:6:7::8
 mi+kde> = mi> 	or
 mi+kde> = mi> 		1:2:3:4:5:6::7:8
 mi+kde> = mi> 	inet_pton should reject (return 0) both of these addresses.
  
 mi+kde> = No, I don't think so.  I cannot see such restriction in RFC 2373 2.2
 mi+kde> = Text Representation of Addresses.  Isn't it a problem of NSPR's
 mi+kde> = addtest?
 
 mi+kde> I thought, 8 positions is the most an IPv6 address can have. This
 mi+kde> strings have 9, don't they?
 
 Ah, yes.  I didn't understand your point, correctly.
 Since it seems that this problem was fixed in BIND9's inet_pton.c,
 I've just commited the fix which was taken from it:
 
 http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/lib/libc/net/inet_pton.c.diff?r1=1.11&r2=1.12
 
 Please try it, and let me know the result.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 --
 Hajimu UMEMOTO @ Internet Mutual Aid Society Yokohama, Japan
 ume@mahoroba.org  ume@{,jp.}FreeBSD.org
 http://www.imasy.org/~ume/