From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Oct 25 14:35:49 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id OAA18755 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 14:35:49 -0700 Received: from hemi.com (hemi.com [204.132.158.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA18739 ; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 14:35:44 -0700 Received: (from mbarkah@localhost) by hemi.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id PAA05072; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 15:39:47 -0600 From: Ade Barkah Message-Id: <199510252139.PAA05072@hemi.com> Subject: Re: 2.1.0-951020-SNAP: Major bug in NFS again! To: mikebo@tellabs.com Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 15:39:47 -0600 (MDT) Cc: wollman@lcs.mit.edu, bugs@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org, davew@sees.bangor.ac.uk In-Reply-To: <199510252043.PAA00582@sunc210.tellabs.com> from "mikebo@tellabs.com" at Oct 25, 95 03:43:18 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 814 Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk [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: --------------------------------------------------------------------