Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 15:39:47 -0600 (MDT) From: Ade Barkah <mbarkah@hemi.com> To: mikebo@tellabs.com Cc: wollman@lcs.mit.edu, bugs@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org, davew@sees.bangor.ac.uk Subject: Re: 2.1.0-951020-SNAP: Major bug in NFS again! Message-ID: <199510252139.PAA05072@hemi.com> In-Reply-To: <199510252043.PAA00582@sunc210.tellabs.com> from "mikebo@tellabs.com" at Oct 25, 95 03:43:18 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Michael Borowiec wrote] > Hopefully, now that we know this is a workaround for strict 4.4BSD net > security, the "-o noconn" option will not be removed. I must admit I > don't understand why a connect(2) is being done. Isn't UDP a connection- > LESS protocol? Perhaps someone can explain... I am only an egg. ;v) I'm not familiar with your specific problem (jumped in the middle of the thread) but although UDP is a connectionless proctocol, one can still use connect() on a udp socket to associate the udp destina- tion address. Alternatively such address can be specified on each send*(). -Ade Barkah -------------------------------------------------------------------- Inet: mbarkah@hemi.com - HEMISPHERE ONLINE - www: <http://hemi.com/>; --------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510252139.PAA05072>