From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Feb 20 05:52:55 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id FAA13387 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 05:52:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from labs.usn.blaze.net.au (labs.usn.blaze.net.au [203.17.53.30]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA13319 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 1997 05:51:54 -0800 (PST) Received: (from davidn@localhost) by labs.usn.blaze.net.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA22266; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 00:48:13 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <19970221004812.00805@usn.blaze.net.au> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 00:48:12 +1100 From: David Nugent To: Darren Reed Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "connection refused" References: <19970221002216.09741@usn.blaze.net.au> <199702201338.AAA00619@unique.usn.blaze.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.61 In-Reply-To: <199702201338.AAA00619@unique.usn.blaze.net.au>; from Darren Reed on Feb 02, 1997 at 12:36:59AM Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Feb 02, 1997 at 12:36:59AM, Darren Reed wrote: > > One can obtain user connection request data without confirming the con- > > nection by issuing a recvmsg(2) call with an msg_iovlen of 0 and a non- > > zero msg_controllen, or by issuing a getsockopt(2) request. Similarly, > > one can provide user connection rejection information by issuing a > > sendmsg(2) call with providing only the control information, or by call- > > ing setsockopt(2). > > > > Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, this is precisely what I'd like > > to do. I just can work out how to do it. :-) > > Try calling accept() with the host you want to accept from, rather > than INADDR_ANY. Hmm. Then I'll need multiple sockets, since there may be more than one remote host. I guess that is feasible given that it only moves the placement of fork(). But it also means leaving around more processes just for enquiry. > What does it say before that ? A connection is ESTABLISHED before it > comes back via accept(). Ok. Then recvmsg() should be used without (instead of) accept()? Regards, David Nugent - Unique Computing Pty Ltd - Melbourne, Australia Voice +61-3-9791-9547 Data/BBS +61-3-9792-3507 3:632/348@fidonet davidn@freebsd.org davidn@blaze.net.au http://www.blaze.net.au/~davidn/