Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 08:02:58 -0700 From: Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org> To: Ian Smith <smithi@nimnet.asn.au> Cc: freebsd-ipfw <freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.org>, "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@FreeBSD.org>, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>, freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D6zkan?= KIRIK <ozkan.kirik@gmail.com> Subject: Re: ipfw table add problem Message-ID: <1385391778.1220.4.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> In-Reply-To: <20131125152238.S78756@sola.nimnet.asn.au> References: <CAAcX-AGDZbFn5RmhLBBn2PPWRPcsFUnea5MgTc7nuXGD8Ge53A@mail.gmail.com> <52911993.8010108@ipfw.ru> <CAAcX-AEt_i8RUfmMy6WLnER0X=uLk5A1=oj911k-nyMJEghRLw@mail.gmail.com> <529259DE.2040701@FreeBSD.org> <20131125152238.S78756@sola.nimnet.asn.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 15:30 +1100, Ian Smith wrote: > On Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:56:14 +0400, Alexander V. Chernikov wrote: > > On 24.11.2013 19:43, =D6zkan KIRIK wrote: > > > Hi, > > >=20 > > > I tested patch. This patch solves, ipfw table 1 add 4899 > > Ok. So I'll commit this fix soon. > > >=20 > > > But, ipfw table 1 add 10.2.3.01 works incorrectly. > > > output is below. > > > # ./ipfw table 1 flush > > > # ./ipfw table 1 add 10.2.3.01 > > inet_pton() does not recognize this as valid IPv4 address, so it is > > treated as usigned unteger key. It looks like this behavior is menti= oned > > in STANDARDS section. > > > # ./ipfw table 1 list > > > 0.0.0.10/32 0 >=20 > I'm wondering if "so don't do that" is really sufficient to deal with=20 > this? If it's not recognised as a valid address, shouldn't it fail to=20 > add anything, with a complaint? I don't see how a string containing=20 > dots can be seen as a valid unsigned integer? It's still not clear to me that inet_pton() is doing the right thing. Per the rfc cited earlier in the thread, it's not supposed to interpret the digits as octal or hex -- they are specifically declared to be decimal numbers. There's nothing invalid about "01" as a decimal number. The fact that many of us have a C-programming background and tend to think of leading-zero as implying octal doesn't change that. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1385391778.1220.4.camel>